Punjab-Haryana High Court
Barjinder Singh @ Makhan vs Cbi on 8 January, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.954 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION: January 08,2013
Barjinder Singh @ Makhan
.......Petitioner
versus
CBI, Chandigarh
......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Amit Jhanji and Mr.Mandeep Kaushik,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the CBI.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The petitioner herein, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of framing of charge, has approached this Court through the present revision petition.
On the threshold, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under Section 384 IPC is made out, inasmuch as, no money was extorted by putting any person in fear, although mere allegation of demand of money has been levelled. No evidence is available on record Criminal Revision No.954 of 2012 2 to suggest that in order to extort the money, the petitioner was hand-in-glove with the Investigating Agency at Moga. The statement of Manpreet Kaur recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 12.2.2008 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala claiming that names of Bharat Bhushan, Inderjeet Singh and others were wrongly included by Raman Kumar, the then Sub Inspector, P.S.City-1 Moga in case FIR No.82 of 18.4.2007 at the instance of the present petitioner and others has no legal sanctity in the light of statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga on 25.4.2007 which reveals a woeful story that Bharat Bhushan and Inderjeet Singh were amongst those persons who had forced Manpreet Kaur to commit sexual intercourse. To strengthen his argument, reliance has been placed on an affidavit filed by Manpreet Kaur before the Supreme Court of India, wherein, she has specifically stated that the statement made before CJM, Moga was voluntarily made. In the absence of necessary ingredients of extortion, a substantive charge under section 384 IPC could not have been framed by the trial Court.
The second limb of the argument is that necessary ingredient for attracting offence under Section 120-B IPC is missing as there should be prior meeting of mind and, Criminal Revision No.954 of 2012 3 therefore, charge framed under Section 120-B IPC is not legally sustainable.
Placing reliance on the judgments rendered in R.S.Nayak v. A.R.Antulay and another (1986) 2 Supreme Court Cases 716 and Gurmit Singh v. UT Chandigarh 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 535, learned senior counsel argues that the ratio of the aforesaid judgments shows that in case there is no prima facie evidence, the accused should not be tried for the offence(s).
Mr.Sumeet Goel, learned counsel appearing for CBI while defending the impugned order submits that as the mandate of Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is clear and unambiguous providing a bar that no revision is maintainable against the order of charge. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in Kuldipak Ahuja son of Amar Nath Ahuja v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 710.
The other argument is that at the time of framing of charge, the trial Court is to prima facie consider whether there is any sufficient material or not and in case it is satisfied that prima facie case is made out, the charge is to be framed.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in Criminal Revision No.954 of 2012 4 the substance of the arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Before adverting to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to go through the statements of Bharat Bhushan Garg and Inderjit Singh recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The relevant portion of the statement of Inderjit Singh reads as under:
"....Investigation has also revealed that on 16.4.2007, Sh.Barjinder Singh @ Makhan s/o Jathedar Tota Singh told Sh.Inderjit Singh over telephone to join the Shiromani Akali Dal Party and support their candidate for the election of President of Municipal Committee, Moga for which he denied. Sh.Barjinder Singh @ Makhan, threatened to get him implicated in some criminal case. Later on, he came to know on 25.4.2007 that he has been falsely implicated in rape case FIR No.82 dated 18.4.2007 registered at PS City-1, Moga at the instance of Sh.Barjinder Singh @ Makhan. On
26.4.2007, he got anticipatory bail till 8.5.2007 and thereafter, on 27.4.2007, he returned to Moga.
Xxxx xxxxx xxxx Investigation has established that Sh.Khaira also conducted enquiry on the complaint No.499 Criminal Revision No.954 of 2012 5 PC-4/07 dated8.5.2007 of Sh.Inderjit Singh and submitted report dated 11.5.2007 as desired by Sh.Devinder Singh Garcha, and Sh.Barjinder Singh @ Makhan. Investigation has established that Sh.Barjinder Singh @ Makhan also demanded Rs.2.00 lacs from Sh.Inderjit Singh for getting his name excluded from the rape case."
On the similar lining, Bharat Bhushan Garg made a statement except demand of money was alleged to be Rs.3.00 lacs.
The statements of Bharat Bhushan Garg and Inderjit Singh have been corroborated by Balbir Singh Khaira, DSP, qua their false implication, who specifically stated that during enquiry conducted by him, he found the aforesaid victims to be innocent. However, a direction was issued by Devender Singh Garcha, the then SSP not to submit a report recommending discharge as desired by the petitioner.
Now coming to the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that no offence is made out under Sections 384 IPC and 120-B IPC does not hold water, inasmuch as, if the evidence available on record is accepted in entirety, it cannot be said that no offence at all much less the offence under Sections 384 and 120-B IPC is made out as the conditions precedent for applicability of the aforesaid sections are satisfied. In the present case, the petitioner threatened Criminal Revision No.954 of 2012 6 Bharat Bhushan Garg and Inderjit Singh to join and extend their support to the candidate for election to the post of President in Municipal Committee, Moga belonging to the Shiromani Akali Dal Party and in case of their failure, they would be implicated in a false case as the cops of the very District i.e. Moga are their nears and dears. Their refusal to join for the aforesaid party put them in dilemma and false implication in a rape case. Even huge money was alleged to have been demanded for exclusion of their names. Thus, necessary ingredients of section 384 and 120-B are proved against the petitioner, inasmuch as, threat was extended to extort the money and the prior meeting of mind was there to implicate the complainant in case of failure to join the desired party and ultimately achieved the desired goal of false implication in a rape case. In the present case, innocent persons were made scapegoat by the cops, petitioner, Manjit Kaur etc. to fulfil their greed of money for exclusion of their names in a rape case.
The second argument of learned senior counsel that the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala on 12.2.2008 cannot be relied upon in the light of statement made under Section 164 CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga on 25.4.2007 and the affidavit furnished by Manpreet Kaur before the Supreme Criminal Revision No.954 of 2012 7 Court of India as the latter part of statement recorded on 12.2.2008 is an after thought. The said argument of learned senior counsel has no substance in the light of the fact that when it has come on record that Manpreet Kaur, was tutored either by the cops or Manjit Kaur etc., for making statement before the Magistrate at Moga, with a view to extort money after false implication of innocent persons. Moreover, the veracity of evidence is to be discussed by the trial Court after leading it by the prosecution and the defence.
Moreover, at the stage of charge, the trial Court has to only form an opinion whether there is sufficient material on record to frame the charge or not and the evidence is not to be discussed, at this stage. Order of framing of charge is an interlocutory order which cannot be challenged in revision as there is a specific bar contained in Section 19(3) of the Act. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the CBI on the judgment rendered in Kuldipak Ahuja's case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case, whereas, judgment relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
January 08,2013 (Daya Chaudhary)
Criminal Revision No.954 of 2012 8
KD Judge