SARABJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                        [2013] 8 S.C.R. 1


                        SARABJIT SINGH                                 A
                                 v.
                 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
              (Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2013)
                          JULY 1, 2013
                                                                       B
 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing of
  FIR- FIR u/ss. 420, 379, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC-Alleging
  that one of the accused had taken Rs.3,00,0001- from him as          C
  consideration pursuant to an agreement to sell a piece of land
. - In addition, he also implicated the person to whom the
  accused (vendor) had sold the land - During pendency of the
  investigation in FIR, complaint by the vendees of the land
  alleging harassment by police in pursuance of the FIR - After        D
  enquiry in the matter Superintendent of Police as well as
  Deputy District Attorney in their separate reports concluded
  that FIR was only to pressurize the vendor and vendees and
  that the first informant had not been able to establish the
  execution of any agreement to sell in his favour - Despite the       E
  favourable reports, Police report uls.173 Cr.P.C. in the FIR
  for initiation of criminal proceedings against the vendor and
  vendees - Application for quashing of FIR - Allowed by High
  Court - Held: It is a case of no evidence - First informant failed
  to establish his claim - Accusations were without any                F
  supporting material - High Court was, therefore, justified in
  quashing the FIR.

     'S' filed a suit against the appeUant      tor
                                             direction not
to interfere with his land measuring 61 ,kanals 3 marlas.
Status quo was granted by the court and the .same                      G
attained finality. Subsequently, 'S' sold the above-said
land to respond~nt No.4 and his brother. Thereafter, the
appellant filed a suit against the vendor 'S', respondent
No.4 and his brother, and others, praying for specific
                                 1                                     H
    2       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A   performance of the deed and for possession. In the suit
    he was not successful in getting any interim order in his
    favour. The appellant lodged FIR u/ss.420, 379, 427, 506,
    148 and 149 IPC, alleging that the vendor received
    Rs.3,00,000/- from him as consideration for agreement to
B   sell. The vendor and the vendees (i.e. respondent No.4
    and his brother) filed application seeking anticipatory
    bail. High Court granted bail. The vendees also filed a
    complaint alleging harassment by Police in furtherance
    of FIR lodged by the appellant. In the enquiry report in
c   the case of complaint by the vendees, it was concluded
    by the Superintendent of Police that the FIR by appellant
    was only to pressurize the vendees and the vendor.

        The vendees approached the High Court, because
    they were repeatedly summoned by the pol.ice authorities
0   despite the favourable report. Pursuant to intervention of
    High Court, the matter was placed for consideration
    before Deputy District Attorney, who in his separate
    report reiterated the conclusions already drawn by
    Superintendent of Police.
E
         Despite the above-mentioned position,· Police gave
    its report (in the FIR lodged by the appellant) before the
    Court to initiate criminal proceedings against the vendor
    and the vendees: However, the said,pr.oceedings were
F   restrained by .High Court at the instance of, the vendor
    and the vendees.

      Vendor (Respondent No.4) also filed application,
  seeking quashing of the FIR lodged by the appellant and
  the same was quashed by the High Court. Hence the
G present appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. The entire claim of the appellant is based
H
      SARABJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                 3


on an agreement to sell. The first information report A
lodged by the appellant did not even disclose the date of
the aforesaid agreement to sell. According to the
averments made by the appellant before the High Court,
and before this Court, it was alleged that the aforesaid
agreement to sell was executed on 13.3.1992. The High 8
Court, while granting interim relief, had taken into
consideration the fact, that the appellant had not
enclosed a copy of the alleged agreement to sell. He had
given no details of the agreement to sell. He did not
disclose any date of the alleged agreement to sell. He did c
not even mention the area of land covered by the
agreement, or the rate at which the land was agreed to
be purchased. The High Court also noticed that the date
on which the sale was to be concluded, besides other
similar issues, had also not been disclosed by the
                                                             0
appellant in his complaint. While recording that the
aforesaid were important ingredients for any agreement
to sell, and while noticing that the same had not been
disclosed by the appellant, the High Court had stayed the
proceedings before the trial Court. Despite s1.1ch strong E
observations made by the High Court in its order dated
11.2.2002, and inspite of the fact that the same is the
actual basis for all the allegations which the appellant has
chosen to level against respondent No. 4 and his brother
the vendor and others, the said agreement to sell has still
not been placed on the record of the case, nor have the F
aforesaid details been furnished. [Para 14] [11-G-H; 12-A~.
F]

    2. The High Court makes a specific mention of the
report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (City-II), G
Jalandhar, wherein it was sought to be concluded, that
the first information report had been registered by the
appellant only to pressurize respondent No. 4 his brother,
the vendor and others. The aforesaid report has not been
                                                            H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 8 S.C.R.

A placed on the record of the case by the appellant. In the
  aforesaid "iew of the matter, an adverse inference is liable _
  to be drawn against the appellant. The Deputy District
  Attorney, Jalandhar also arrived at a similar conclusion,
  namely, that the appellant had not been able to produce
B any material demonstrating the execution of the alleged
  agreement to sell in his favour. Even this report has not
  been placed on the record of the case. Herein again, an
  adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the
  appellant. [Para 15] [12-F-H; 13-A-B, C-E]
c        3. The appellant has not been able to produce any
    material, on the basis of which he can establish his claim.
    The land in question was admittedly sold by the vendor
    to respondent No.4 and his brother well before the
    registration of th_e first information report by the
D   appellant. This is a case of no evidence. It is a case where
    accusations have -been levelled without supporting
    material. Despite a clear indication in the order passed by
    the High Court, such supporting material has still not
    been made available for perusal of this Court. Therefore,
E   in the facts and circumstances of this case i.e. in the
    absence of any m~terial whatsoever to support the
    charges levelled by_-the appellant in the first information
    report, the High Court was justified in quashing the said
    first information report by invoking its jurisdiction under
F   Section 482 Cr.P.C .. The conclusions drawn by the
    Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, and the
    Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, that the police
    complaint made by the appellant was solely aimed at
    pressurizing the vendor and the vendees, were fully
G   justified. [Para 16) [13-F-H; 14-A-C]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 815 of 2013.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2006 of the
H High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
        SARABJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                         5


Misc. No. 32871-M of 2002.                                             A

    R.K. Kapoor, Rekha Giri, Shweta Kapoor, Anis Ahmed
Khan for the Appellant.

    Shilpa Sood, AAG, Kuldip Singh, S.K. Verma for the
Respondents.                                                           B

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. Sarabjit Singh, the appellant herein, purchased 30             C
kanals 11 marlas· of land from Salamat Masih through two
deeds dated 11.2.1992 and 13.3.1992. The pleadings in the
instant appeal reveal, that the aforesaid purchase made by the
appellant was out of a total holding of 99 kanals (with the vendor
Salamat Masih). It is not a matter of dispute, that on purchasing      D
30 kanals 11 marlas of land, the appellant Sarabjit Singh set
up a brick kiln on the land for manufacture of bricks. ltpal Singh
(respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother Gurbinder Singh also
purchased 61 kanals 3 marlas of land from Salamat Masih (the
vendor of Sarabjit, the appellant herein). The instant purchase        E
was made through two sale deeds dated 17 .3.1997 and
4.4.1997. It is accepted by the parties, that the land purchased
by Sarabjit Singh, the appellant herein, adjoins the land
purchased by ltpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his
brother Gurbinder Singh.                                               F

    3. The first litigation between the parties was initiated by
Salamat Masih. He filed a civil suit on 20.4.1995 against the
appellant Sarabjit Singh. The principal prayer made by Salamat
Masih in the aforesaid suit was, for a direction to the appellant
Sarabjit Singh, not to interfere in his land measuring 61 kanals       G
3 marlas. It would be pertinent to mention at this juncture, that it
was the instant land which was subsequently sold by Salamat
Masih to ltpal Singh and his brother Gurbinder Singh (through
the said two registered sale deeds, dated 17 .3.1997 and
                                                                       H
    6        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A   4.4.1997). In the written statement filed by Sarabjit Singh in
    response to the suit filed by Salamat Masih, Sarabjit Singh
    admitted, that he had only purchased 32 kanals of land, out of
    the total land holding of Salamat Masih. Interestingly, in his
    written statement, Sarabjit Singh (the appellant herein) did not
B   aver, that he had entered into an agreement to purchase any
    further land from Salamat Masih.

       4. In the above-mentioned suit preferred by Salamat
  Masih, the Civil Court passed an interim order of status quo
  on 3.2.1998. At the time of passing of the aforesaid interim
C order, the land in question was already in possession of ltpal
  Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother Gurbinder
  Singh. At this juncture, it is necessary to reiterate, that ltpal
  Singh and Gurbinder Singh had purchased the instant 61
  kanals and 3 marlas of land from Salamat Masih (through the
D said two registered sale deeds, dated 17.3.1997 and
  4.4.1997). In view of the interim order passed in the civil suit,
  ltpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh were not adversely affected
  by the dispute between Salamat Masih and the appellant
  Sarabjit Singh. Despite that, the appellant Sarabjit Singh
E assailed the order dated 3.2.1998 (passed by the Civil Court
  requiring the parties to the litigation to maintain status quo),
  before the District Judge. The District Judge vide order dated
  5.5.2000, dismissed the challenge raised by the appellant
  Sarabjit Singh. It is not a matter of dispute, that the aforesaid
F order dated 5.5.2000 was not further challenged by the
  appellant Sarabjit Singh, and must therefore, for all intents and
  purposes, be deemed to have attained finality between the rival
  parties.

          5. It is apparent from the factual position noticed
G   hereinabove, that Salamat Masih had initiated the process of ·
    litigation between the parties by filing the said civil suit against
    the appellant Sarabjit Singh on 20.4.1995. About three years
    thereafter, the appellant Sarabjit Singh also filed a civil suit on
    8.1.1998 against Salamat Masih (and others, including ltpal
H
       SARABJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                         7
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Singh and Gurbinder Singh), for specific performance and              A
possession. The relief of specific performance was claimed by
the appellant Sarabjit Singh on the basis of a deed dated
13.3.1992.

      6. It seems, that the appellant Sarabjit Singh was on the
                                                                      8
back foot with reference to the litigation pertaining to 61 kanals
3 marlas of land purchased by ltpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh
(through the said two registered sale deeds, dated 17.3.1997
and 4.4.1997). The instant inference is based on the fact, that
Salamat Masih had filed his suit on 20.4.1995, wherein an
order of status quo was passed on 3.2.1998. As against the            C
aforesaid, the appellant Sarabjit Singh had also filed a civil suit
on 8.1.1998. However, he was not successful in getting any
interim order in his favour. It is, therefore, that on 10.1.1998,
the appellant Sarabjit Singh lodged a first information report at
Police Station Adampur in district Jalandhar. The aforesaid first     D
information report was lodged under Sections 420, 379, 427,
506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The entire claim
of the appellant Sarabjit Singh in the aforesaid first information
report was founded on an agreement to sell in furtherance
whereof it is alleged, that Salamat Masih had received from him       E
a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as consideration. However interestingly,
neither the date of the agreement to sell had been depicted in
the complaint made by Sarabjit Singh, nor the same was
produced by him at the time of the registration of the above first
information report.                                                   F

      7. Threatened with the registration of the first information
report referred to above, ltpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein),
his brother Gurbinder Singh and the vendor Salamat Masih
(besides others implicated in the first information report)           G
preferred Criminal Miscellaneous no.4994-M of 1998, before
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter
referred to as, the High Court). The prayer made in the aforesaid
Criminal Miscellaneous no. 4994-M of 1998, was for grant of
anticipatory bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
                                                                      H
    8        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A   Procedure. By an order dated 24.7.1998, the High Court
    granted interim bail to all the petitioners. On 24.7.1998, the
    High Court confirmed the aforesaid order of bail.

       8. ltpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother
  Gurbinder Singh, preferred a complaint before the Senior
8
  Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, alleging that they were
  being unnecessarily harassed by the police, in furtherance of
  the first information report lodged by the appellant Sarabjit
  Singh. In continuation with the aforesaid complaint, the Senior
  Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar marked an enquiry into the
C matter to the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar. Even
  though a copy of the aforesaid report was available (on the file
  of the High Court, as annexure P-8), the same has not been
  placed on the record of the instant case. Nevertheless, it is
  relevant to mention, that with reference to the aforesaid report,
D the High Court had remarked that the Superintendent of Police
  (City-II), Jalandhar had concluded, that the case registered by
  the appellant Sarabjit Singh was only to pressurize ltpal Singh
  (respondent no. 4 herein), his brother Gurbinder Singh and
  Salamat Masih.
E
       9. Despite the aforesaid favourable report, ltpal Singh and
  his brother Gurbinder Singh were repeatedly summoned by the
  police authorities. In the aforesaid view of the matter, ltpal Singh
  and Gurbinder Singh again approached the High Court by filing
F Criminal Miscellaneous no. 22198-M of 2000. The aforesaid
  Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of by the High
  Court on 10.1.2002. The order passed by the High Court is self-
  explanatory, and is accordingly being extracted hereunder:-

        "Allegation of the petitioner is that he is being repeatedly
G       summoned in the office of S.P. (D), Jalandhar, without any
        jurisdiction. This grievance will be looked into by the S.S.P.,
        Jalandhar on a fresh representation being made by the
        petitioner and the same will be disposed of within six
        months of its filing. ·
H
       SARABJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                        9
          [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

     Disposed of accordingly."                                       A

It seems, that the matter was then placed before the Deputy
District Attorney, Jalandhar, for consideration. As per the report
of the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, the appellant Sarabjit
Singh had not been able to establish the execution of any            B
agreement to sell, in his favour. In the aforesaid view of the
matter, the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, in a separate
report, reiterated the conclusions which had already been
drawn by the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar (in his
report, referred to in the foregoing paragraph).
                                                                     c
       10. Despite the factual position noticed hereinabove,
having concluded its investigation in the matter, the police
presented a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, before a court of competent jurisdiction, so as to
initiate criminal proceedings against ltpal Singh (respondent no.    D
4 herein), Gurbinder Singh, Salamat Masih and others. The
process of initiation of criminal proceedings against the
appellant was assailed by ltpal Singh and others by preferring
Criminal Misc. no. 3039-M of 2002. The following order was
passed in the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous no. 3039-M of         E
2002 on 11.2.2002:-

    "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that report
    under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented before the
    trial court in FIR 4 dated January 10, 1998 under Section
                                                                     F
    420/379, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC.

     It is further contended that the alleged occurrence had
     taken place on a parcel of land measuring 61 kanals 3
     marlas which had been sole by the owner Salamat Masih
     to the petitioner and his brother vide two sale deeds dated     G
     March 17, 1997. On the other hand the possession of this
     land was claimed by the complainant (respondent 4 herein)
     on the basis of an agreement to sell. In the recital of the
     FIR the complainant stated that "for the balance of 61
     kanals 2 marls, I had entered into an agreement to sell with    H
    10       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A        Salamat Masih for digging earth and for purchasing the
         said land. That the whole of the land measuring 91 kanals
         13 marlas is situated in village Dhogri and possession
         was given to me in 1990."

         Significantly, no details of the agreement to sell have been
B
         mentioned. FIR does not disclose any date. area of land
         covered by agreement. the rate per kanal or purchase
         price. the date on which the sale was to be concluded etc.,
         which are all important ingredients of any agreement to sell.

c        In the main petition the petitioner is seeking relief on the
         basis of report of SP. Annexure P- 7 in which on
         investigation it was found that the petitioner had not
         committed any offence.

D        On January 23, 2002 notice of m6tion was ordered to be
         issued for February 28, 2002.

    In the interim period, proceedings before the trial court on the
    basis or report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. shall remain stayed."

E                                                 (emphasis is ours)

         It is therefore apparent, that the trial Court was restrained
    by the High Court from proceeding against ltpal Singh and
    others.

F       11. Simultaneously with the proceedings mentioned
  hereinabove, ltpal Singh preferred Criminal Miscellaneous no.
  32871-M of 2002 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure, for quashing the first information report lodged by
  the appellant Sarabjit Singh. After obtaining the response of the
G appellant Sarabjit Singh (who was arrayed as respondent no.
  4), the High Court, vide its order dated 20.11.2006, quashed
  the first information report dated 10.1.1998 (lodged by the
  appellant Sarabjit Singh with Police Station Adampur in district
  Jalandhar).
H
       SARABJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       11
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
     12. The order passed by the High Court dated 20.11.2006,        A
quashing the first information report dated 10.1.1998 referred
to above, has been assailed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh
before this Court, through the instant criminal appeal.

     13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
                                                                     8
submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for
the appellant. Primarily, the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant was, that the High Court had prematurely,
invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and quashed the first information report
lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh without considering the       C
allegations made by the appellant. It was submitted, that a large
number of questions of fact were involved in the allegations
contained in the complaint filed by the appellant, specially in
view of the factual position adopted by the respondents. The
truth or falsity of the matter, according to the learned counsel     D
representing the appellant, could only have emerged after the
prosecution was permitted to lead its evidence, It was
submitted, that persons against whom allegations have been
levelled in the first information report, would then have had
ample opportunity to rebut the prosecution evidence and              E
substantiate their innocence. The contention in nutshell was, that
in the above situation, justice would have been rendered to
both parties. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant, that the High Court was not justified
in invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of        F
Criminal Procedure, to quash the aforesaid first information
report, dated 10.1.1998.

     14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for
the appellant. The entire claim of the appellant Sarabjit Singh      G
is based on an agreement to sell. The first information report
lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh on 10.1.1998 at Police
Station Adampur, district Jalandhar, did not even disclose the
date of the aforesaid agreement to sell. According to the
                                                                     H
    12       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A   averments made by the appellant Sarabjit Singh before the
    High Court, and now before this Court, it is alleged that the
    aforesaid agreement to sell was executed on 13.3.1992. With
    reference to the abovesaid agreement to sell, the observations
    made by the High Court in its order dated 11.2.2002 (in
B Criminal Miscellaneous no. 3039-M of 2002) are extremely
    significant. The aforesaid order has been extracted
    hereinabove. The High Court, while granting interim relief, had
    taken into consideration the fact, that the appellant Sarabjit
    Singh had not enclosed a copy of the alleged agreement to sell.
c He had given no details of the agreement to sell. He did not
    disclose any date of the alleged agreement to sell. He did not
    even mention the area of land covered by the agreement, or
    the rate at which the land was agreed to be purchased. The
    High Court also noticed, that the date on which the sale was to
    be concluded, besides other similar issues, had also not been
0
    disclosed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, in his complaint.
    While recording that the aforesaid were important ingredients
    for any agreement to sell, and while noticing that the same had
    not been disclosed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, the High
    Court had stayed the proceedings before the trial Court.
E Despite such strong observations made by the High Court in
    its order dated 11.2.2002, and inspite of the fact that the same
    is the actual basis for all the allegations which the appellant has
    chosen to level against ltpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein),
    Gurbrnder Singh, Salamat Masih and others, the said
F agreement to sell has still not been placed on the record of the
  . case, nor have the aforesaid details been furnished.

       15. The impugned order passed by the High Court makes
  a specific mention of the report submitted by the
G Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, wherein it was
  sought fu be concluded, that the first information report had
  been registered by the appellant Sarabjit Singh only to
  pressurize ltpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein), Gurbinder
  Singh, Salamat Masih and others. The aforesaid report was
H available on the record of the High Court as annexure P-8. An
        SARABJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                         13
            [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
effective determination of the present controversy, therefore,          A
could have been made only upon a perusal of the aforesaid
report. Unfortunately, the aforesaid report has not been placed
on the record of the case by the appellant Sarabjit Singh. In the
aforesaid view of the matter, an adverse inference is liaole to
be drawn against the appellant Sarabjit Singh, and the finding          B
recorded by the High Court on the basis of the aforesaid report
of the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, that the
instant case had been registered by the appellant Sarabjit
Singh only to pressurize ltpal Singh, Gurbinder Singh, Salamat
Masih and others, has inevitably to be reiterated. Consequent           c
upon the disposal of Criminal Miscellaeous no. 22198-M of
2000 vide order dated 10.1.2002 (extracted hereinabove), it
seems, that the matter was placed before the Deputy District
Attorney, Jalandhar. The Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar
also arrived at a similar conclusion, namely, that the appellant
                                                                        0
Sarabjit Singh had not been able to produce any material
demonstrating the execution of the alleged agreement to sell
in his favour. It has been expressly noticed by the High Court
in the impugned order dated 20.11.2006, that even the Deputy
District Attorney, Jalandhar, in his report, upheld the earlier
report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (City-II),             E
Jalandhar. Even this report has not been placed on the record
of the case. Herein again, an adverse inference is liable to be
drawn against the appellant Sarabjit Singh.

      16. From the course of our narration of the factual position      F
as it traversed before different levels of investigation and
judicial scrutiny, it emerges that the appellant Sarabjit Singh has
not been able to produce any material, on the basis of which
he can establish his claim. The aforesaid land was admittedly
been sold by Salamat Masih to ltpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh           G
(through two registered sale deeds dated 17.3.1997 and
4.4.1997), i.e. well before the registration of the first information
report dated 10.1.1998 by the appellant Sarabjit Singh. This
is surely a case of no evidence. It is a case where accusations
have been levelled without supporting material. Despite a clear         H
    14       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A indication in the order passed by the High Court, such
  supporting material has still not been made available for perusal
  of this Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this
  case, we are satisfied, that in the absence of any material
  whatsoever to support the charges levelled by the appellant
B Sarabjit Singh in the first information report dated 10.1.1998,
  the High Court was justified in quashing the said first information
  report by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
  of Criminal Procedure. We are also satisfied, that the
  conclusions drawn by the Superintendent of Police (City-II),
c Jalandhar, and the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, that the
   police complaint made by the appellant Sarabjit Singh was
   solely aimed at pressurizing Salamat Masih, ltpal Singh and
  Gurbinder Singh (besides some others), were fully justified.

      17. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
D merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly
  dismissed.

    K.K.T.                                      Appeal dismissed.