Punjab-Haryana High Court
Telu Ram vs The State Of Haryana on 4 February, 2011
Crl. Misc. No.M-24999 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-24999 of 2009
Date of Decision: 04.02.2011
Telu Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate
for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of Charge framed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide order dated 12.01.2008 against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.43 dated 13.03.2006 registered at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal and order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2008 filed by the petitioner against the order of trial Court framing charges above mentioned as also all proceedings arising therefrom.
While praying for quashing of Charge framed, learned counsel Crl. Misc. No.M-24999 of 2009 2 for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments.
The first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present petitioner is an arbitrator and he is not a beneficiary and as such, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 120-B and 506 of the IPC could have been made out against the present petitioner.
The said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit, in as much as, the allegation against the present petitioner, as per the FIR, is as under :-
" Sudhir, Balbir in connivance with their maternal uncle Telu Ram s/o Lijja Ram Ror, resident of Lathron and Shalinder son of Malkhan Singh resident of Badkalu prepared an arbitration agreement for which stamp papers were purchased by Balbir himself and on the last page of arbitration award which is not a stamp paper have forged the signature of Complainant. Telu Ram son of Lijja Ram resident of Lathron and Salinder son of Malkhan Singh resident of Bausaal in connivance with each other prepared a false arbitration agreement by forging signature of Amar Singh. Telu Ram Arbitrator did not give share to the third son Jalbir and kept the third share as that of Amar Singh so that the age of Amar Singh is 87 years and he is about to die. So that after his death they could get their share out of the property of their father also."
Reply has been filed by the State. During investigation, it was found that the arbitration agreement is forged document as per the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory. It was prepared on the pre-signed paper. As the signature of third brother Jaldhir were not on the paper so he had not been shown as partner to the agreement.
Thus, the petitioner has been enroped on the basis of Section 120-B IPC. He is also the maternal uncle. As such, it cannot be said, at this stage, that no offence is made out against the petitioner or that he is Crl. Misc. No.M-24999 of 2009 3 not a beneficiary or the said charges could not have been framed. For the framing of the charges, only a prima facie case has to be seen.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others reported as 2008(4) CRC (Criminal) 640 in para 10, held as under :-
"10. After analysing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied.
11. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed."
In view of the above, the order framing charge cannot be interfered with.
The second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of the respondents that the award is forged is apparently incorrect as the complainant has not signed the said award cannot be sustained for the purpose of quashing of the FIR as the allegation in the FIR is also qua the arbitration agreement and not just about the `award.' The specific allegation is that the present petitioner along with others prepared a false arbitration agreement by forging signatures of Amar Singh-complainant. The same required to be proved. They can be only proved through a trial and by leading evidence. Crl. Misc. No.M-24999 of 2009 4
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra reported as 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 890 while discussing the scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as well as, the expression "rarest of rare cases" observed in paras 10, 11 and 12 as under :-
"10. The scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 227 of the Constitution has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a series of decisions and several circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing proceedings have been enumerated. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary to burden the judgment by making reference to all the decisions on the point. It would suffice to state that though the powers possessed by the High Courts under the said provisions are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The powers have to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, where the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.
11. Although in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the court by way of illustration, formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extra-ordinary power under the afore-stated provisions could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court yet it was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which such power could be Crl. Misc. No.M-24999 of 2009 5 exercised.
12. The purport of the expression "rarest of rare cases"
has been explained very recently in Som Mittal (supra). Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has said thus :
"When the words `rarest of rare cases' are used after the words `sparingly and with circumspection' while describing the scope of Section 482, those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words `sparingly and with circumspection'. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases"
is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasize that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection."
Applying the test and the legal position as above, the case, in hand, does not fall in any of the exceptions, as well as the expression "rarest of rare cases" where the FIR can be quashed while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, it is pointed out that almost four witnesses have since been examined. As such, this Court does not deem it proper to quash the FIR for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C at this stage.
Even otherwise, the second revision under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C is not maintainable. Revision against the order framing charges has already been dismissed. As such, the present petition under Section 482 Crl. Misc. No.M-24999 of 2009 6 Cr.P.C for quashing of the charge is nothing but a second revision. It is a well settled proposition of law that second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable except on account of misuse of the process of law or in case of injustice. No such ground has been raised which may enable this Court to conclude that there has been miscarriage of justice or misuse of the process of law.
In view of the allegation which required to be proved through trial, as well as, taking into account that almost four prosecution witnesses have since been examined, as well as, taking into account that this is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the revision petition has already been dismissed, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order dated 12.01.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, as well as, the order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 04.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet