Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shashi Jain And Others vs Inderjit Singh Grewal (Through His Lr) on 30 August, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-31237 of 2005 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-31237 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.8.2012
Shashi Jain and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Inderjit Singh Grewal (through his LR)
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.P.L.Singla, Advocate,
for respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of criminal complaint case No.23/2 of 25.8.2003 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.(Annexure P-5); summoning order dated 5.4.2005 (Annexure P-9) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Contents of the complaint (Annexure P-5) read as under:-
"1. That the complainant is the resident of House No. 82, Defence Colony, Bhai Randhi Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Criminal Misc. No.M-31237 of 2005 (O&M) 2
2. That the complainant entered into a contract with the Managing Committee through its Manager, Shri Vijay Kumar Bansal, whereby the complainant agreed to impart computer education training to students of the said school w.e.f. 1.8.2002 and for the said purpose the complainant was provided a double room on the first floor of the school, which was kept under lock and key of the complainant.
3. That the complainant furnished the said room, installed two air conditioners, its furniture installed 14 computers and have been providing computer education training theoretically and practically and also deployed the said accused, namely, Vaneet Kumar, Gurpreet Singh, Miss Rajni and Miss Payal, who were under the employment of the complainant.
4. That the school has been making the payments to the complainant at the rate of ` 30/- per month per student and paid upto 31st March, 2003.
5. That thereafter i.e., 31.3.2003 though the complainant had been imparting computer education training to about 900 students but was not paid his dues from 1.4.2003 to 31.7.2003 and when the complainant contacted Mrs. Shashi Jain, accused No. 5, she showed her inability to pay the dues and advised the complainant to discontinue the computer classes, as the school Managing Committee has dismissed her Criminal Misc. No.M-31237 of 2005 (O&M) 3 from the post of the principal but was working as Principal due to the order of the Hon'ble High Court and as such was unable to pay the dues from 1.4.2003 though in fact, she had collected the fees and other charges from the students and collection from the people and has paid the salary of the staff for the months of April and May, 2003.
6. That Vaneet Kumar, Gurpreet Singh, Miss Rajni and Miss Payal were pressing hard the complainant for their salary but under the compelling of Mrs. Shashi Jain and for not paying the contractual amount due to the complainant had to put locks on the room containing computers on 1.8.2003 leaving all the equipment inside the room.
7. That on 1.8.2003, the complainant issued notices to Mr.s Shashi Jain, accused No. 5, Ramesh Bansal and Vijay Bansal, President and Manager respectively of the said intimating them that the complainant when paid his outstanding amount, shall resume the computer education training to the students.
8. That on 4.8.2003 at about 1 noon, the complainant went to check the lock and equipment of his computer room but he was surprised to find the locks of the said room broken and said accused Vaneet Kumar, Gurpreet Singh, Miss Rajni and Miss Payal holding the computer classes in the said room and when asked Criminal Misc. No.M-31237 of 2005 (O&M) 4 informed the complainant that the locks have been broken open by Mrs. Shashi Jain through some one and had ordered them to hold the classes. On checking the complainant found missing 3 Monitors, 4 C.P.Us., 4 Key Boards, 2 Mouse and 2 speakers sets. The complainant immediately contacted Mrs. Shashi Jain, accused No.5 for all this, who in return told the complainant that she had got the lock broken and threatened the complainant to run away otherwise to get the complainant killed.
9. That all the accused has conspired, broke open the locks of the computer room, stolen the articles stated above, caused loss to the complainant and gain to themselves and trespassed illegally in the computer room with malafide intention and even had withheld the computer fee collected from the students and not paid to the complainant thus making breach of trust inspite of demand for making the said amounts to the complainant and used the same illegally.
10.That on 5.8.2003, the complainant addressed in writing a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon narrating all the facts therein which was registered at No.336/Peshi/SSP dated 5.8.2003 which was alleged to have been marked to Depute Superintendent of Police, Jagraon and then to S. Satnam Singh, SI, SHO Police Station City, Jagraon. Criminal Misc. No.M-31237 of 2005 (O&M) 5
11.That the complainant had been running from pillar to post for awaiting justice and registration of the case against the above 5 accused persons. S. Satnam Singh, Incharge Police Station City, Jagraon instead of registration of the case has been threatening to the complainant to withdraw the complaint or to face implication of the complainant in some false case as the accused person especially Mrs. Shashi Jain had high links with the official on whose tune the said SHO has to dance.
12.That feeling aggrieved of the conduct of the said SHO Police Station City, S. Satnam Singh, SI the complainant sent complaints to Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab, Chandigarh, Inspector General of Police (Law and Orders), Punjab, Chandigarh and Deputy Inspector General of Police Ludhiana Range at Ludhiana on 8.8.2003 for the redressal of the grievances of the complainant but the same have not granted justice till today.
13. It is, therefore prayed that order may please be passed to the Incharge, Police Station, City, Jagraon to register a case under the various sections of the IPC for which the accused are liable having committed the same and to bring the guilty to book for punishment as per provisions of law."
Criminal Misc. No.M-31237 of 2005 (O&M) 6Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 was the principal of the school. Complainant Inderjit Singh Grewal (since deceased) had been given a contract to impart education qua computer courses to the students of the school. Hence, no offence of theft etc. could have been said to have been committed by the petitioners. The matter was duly inquired by the police and it was found that no offence was made out in the present case vide Annexure P-10.
Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant had been made a scapegoat of the dispute between two sections of management of the school.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Complainant, in support of his case, examined CW-1 Vijay Kumar Bansal, CW-2 Rakesh Khanna and himself appeared in the witness box as CW-3. In his preliminary evidence all the said witnesses had deposed in terms of the contents of the complaint. In these circumstances, there was prima facie material available on record against the accused to be proceeded against them. The trial Court ordered the summoning of the accused under Sections 451, 380, 506 and 120-B IPC vide order dated 5.4.2005 (Annexure P-9). The fact that the matter had been inquired by the police and it was found that no offence had been committed by the accused would be gone into during trial. At the stage of passing of summoning order, the trial Court was only required to see as to whether prima facie there was sufficient material on record to proceed against the Criminal Misc. No.M-31237 of 2005 (O&M) 7 accused and in view of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant the trial Court rightly held that the petitioners were liable to be summoned to face the trial under Sections 451, 380, 506, 120- B IPC as, prima facie, there was enough material on record in this regard.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not be just and expedient to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court, during trial, shall remain exempted subject to the following conditions:- (i) petitioners shall be represented through counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute their identity as an accused; (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel (v) shall appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court; and (vi) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 30, 2012 anita