Punjab-Haryana High Court
Teja Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523
CRR-16200-2024 1 2024:PHHC:050523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111 CRR-16200-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.04.2024
Teja Singh ......... Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present Mr. Surjit Singh Salar,,Advocate for the pe oner.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)
FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/on 7 24.05.2022 Vigilance Bureau, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and
Range Ferozepur 13(1) (A) read with Sec on 13(2) of PC Act 1988 as amended by PC (Amendment) Act 2018 CRM-14382-2024 Applica on is allowed as prayed for.
CRR-16200-2024
1. Seeking quashing of above cap oned FIR (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, the pe oner has come up before this Court by filing the present pe on under Sec on 482 CrPC.
2. I have heard counsel for the pe oner, to ascertain whether the pe on qualifies the test laid down in the case of State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal and other judicial precedents and whether it is case worth issuing no ce or not?
3. I have also gone through the pleadings along with annexures.
4. The facts of the case are being taken from report filed under Sec on 173 CrPC (Annexure P-2) and its translated copy, which forms part of the pleadings and it reads as follows:
"The brief facts of the case are that the le er of the Head Office Vigilance Bureau Punjab SAS Nagar vide Memo no.14462/VB/S-11 dated 13.05.2022 and SSP Office Vigilance Bureau range Ferozpur, Endst no.2654/VB/A2 dated 16.05.2022 along with complaint no.76/2017 was received for registra3on of the case. From that it is 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523 CRR-16200-2024 2 2024:PHHC:050523 found "On inquiry of the complaint made to SHO Police Sta3on Vigilance Bureau range Ferozepur, complaint no.76/2017 moved by Harbhajan Singh Sarpanch Gram Panchayat village Bahona, District Moga against Smt. Amarjit Kaur Block Development & Panchayat Officer Moga-1, Sukhmandar Singh Administrator SEPO, Teja Singh Samundri VDO cum Panchayat Secretary in the office of Block Development & Panchayat Officer Moga-1. And also by Panchayat members Gurdev Singh, Gamdoor Singh, Jasbir Singh, Niranjan Singh, Ranjit Singh, Gurnam Singh. On inquiry it is found that Teja Singh VDO cum Panchayat Secretary has withdrawn from Gram Panchayat Bahona has withdrawn from account no.914010002055694 a?er forging signatures of Sukhmandar Singh Administrator and Sarabjit Singh an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- by using 15 different cheques between 13.07.2015 to 01.08.2015 and deposited back on 15.08.2015 an amount of Rs.49,000/-. In this way, Teja Singh VDO cum Panchayat Secretary office of Block Development & Panchayat Officer Moga-1 has been found to have embezzled the government money by withdrawing it on the basis of forged signatures of Sukhmandar Singh, Administrator and Sarabjit Singh. In this way, an embezzlement of Rs.3,21,000/- by withdrawing from the government treasury is prima facie made out. By doing so, Teja Singh VDO cum Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bahona District Moga has commi ed an offence under Sec3ons 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC r/w Sec3on 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of PC Act 1988 as amended by PC (Amendment) Act 2018. Therefore, this rukka was sent through Senior constable Harjinder Singh No.3/383 IRB Vigilance Bureau Unit Moga to Police Sta3on Vigilance Bureau Ferozpur range. The record rela3ng to the complaint was taken into custody by the Inves3ga3on Officer vide separate memo. The inves3ga3on officer also taken into custody of vigilance bureau the original cheques a ached with the file bearing Cheque no.095998 dated 28.06.2015, Cheque no.095999 dated 29.06.2015, Cheque no.096000 dated 30.06.2015, Cheque no.080241 (self) dated 03.07.2015, Cheque no.080242 dated 03.07.2015, Cheque no.080244 dated 04.07.2015, Cheque no.080246 dated 04.07.2015, Cheque no.080247 dated 04.07.2015, Cheque no.080245 dated 04.07.2015, Cheque no.080243 dated 04.07.2015, Cheque no.080250 (self) dated 04.07.2015, Cheque no.080248 dated 05.07.2015, Cheque no.080249 dated 05.07.2015, Cheque no.080251 dated 05.07.2015 and Cheque 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523 CRR-16200-2024 3 2024:PHHC:050523 no.080252 dated 05.07.2015 (15 cheques) through separate memo. In this connec3on the Inves3ga3on Officer recorded the statements of lady Constable Gurpreet Kaur no.106/Faridkot and ASI Resham Singh no.934/Moga (BV) Unit Moga u/s 161 Cr.PC. The above memos and the statements are a ached with the challan.
A?er that the Inves3ga3on Officer Shri Kewal Krishan DSP arrested the accused Teja Singh VDO cum Panchayat Secretary on 24.05.2022 from the office of Block Development & Panchayat Officer Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana a?er ques3oning him. The informa3on regarding his arrest was given to Jagdev Singh Deol Sarpanch s/o Shri Gurbaksh Singh resident of Grosian Qadar Bax, Police Sta3on Sidhwan Bet Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. In this connec3on the grounds on which the accused was arrested was also prepared and informa3on was also prepared and was witnessed by the accused along with two other witnesses. The personal search of the accused was also done as per rules. A memo regarding personal search was separately prepared which was got signed from the accused and the witnesses Shri Kewal Krishan DSP along with fellow employees reached at Vigilance Bureau Unit Moga taking along accused Teja Singh. There, Constable Harjinder Singh no.3/383 IRB, VB Unit Moga produced the original message and a copy of FIR before the Inves3ga3on Officer and formali3es were done. Constable Harjinder Singh was associated with the inves3ga3on by the Inves3ga3on officer and his statement was also recorded under Sec3on 161 Cr.P.C. The Ar3cles recovered from the personal search of the accused was deposited through Shri Gurpreet Singh HC no.6/2031 of IRB VB Unit Moga in the malkhana of Police Sta3on Vigilance Bureau Ferozpur and his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The memo of grounds of arrest of accused Teja Singh, informa3on and memo of personal search and the above statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are a ached with the challan. That on 25.05.2022, the inves3ga3on Officer Shri Kewal Krishan DSP produced the accused Teja Singh VDO before the Hon'ble Court of Smt. Pree3 Sukija CJM Moga and obtained two days police remand. The sample signatures of Accused Teja Singh and also the sample signatures done by accused Teja Singh of the Administrator Sukhmandar Singh and Sarabjit Singh proprietor of brick killen in English. Shri Harbhajan Singh former Sarpanch, the complainant and Gurdev Singh former member Panchayat resident of village Bahona, 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523 CRR-16200-2024 4 2024:PHHC:050523 District Moga were associated with the inves3ga3on and their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded which are a ached. On 27.05.2022, Shri Kewal Krishan DSP, Inves3ga3on Officer produced Teja Singh produced before the court of CJM Moga on comple3on of his remand and to seek 14 days judicial remand and also submi ed an applica3on for obtaining sample signatures of accused Teja Singh in English on being permi ed by the Hon'ble Court, the sample signatures of accused Teja Singh in English fi?een 3mes on three sheets. The accused Teja Singh VDO was got lodged in Sub Jail Moga under judicial remand. The witness in the case namely Sarabjit Singh son of Jand Singh r/o Kothe Rajpure (Jalabad East) District Moga was also associated in the inves3ga3on and his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded which is a ached.
On 30.05.2022, the Inves3ga3on Officer Shri Kewal Krishan DSP associated Sukhmandar Singh SEPO, the Administrator of Gram Panchayat village Bahona, District Moga and was shown to cheque bearing no.016181 dated 26.06.2015 for Rs.36,900 and cheque no.016182 dated 26.06.2015 for Rs.12,000 which are a ached with the complaint 76/17 Moga and were issued from the official Account no.914020004056494 of Gram Panchayat village Bahona. He iden3fied the cheque that through those cheques he had withdrawn with his original signatures as Administrator of Gram Panchayat Bahona to make payment to the labours Makhan Singh son of Dharam Singh and Jagtar Khan son of Jeet Khan engaged for development/cleanliness work in the village and making the payment. These two cheques were also taken into custody vide separate memo by the Inves3ga3on Officer. This witness Sukhmandar Singh SEPO Administrator also seen the photocopies of the six forged resolu3ons a ached with complaint 76/17 and a?er iden3fica3on, stated that on the forged resolu3ons, the accused Teja Singh VDO has forged his signatures to prepare them. Those were also taken into custody vide separate memos as evidence by Vigilance Bureau. This witness Sukhmandar Singh also iden3fied the signatures of Teja Singh on the copy of apology which was wri en by accused Teja Singh in FIR no.134 dated 12.08.2015 u/s 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC PS City 1 Moga during inves3ga3on by the police to the effect that by mistake he has withdrawn Rs.1,85,000/- through different cheques of village Bahona and is ready to deposit the same with interest. He also iden3fied one receipt of Rs.1,87,000 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523 CRR-16200-2024 5 2024:PHHC:050523 with the apology le er which were deposited by Teja Singh accused. On the basis of that, FIR no.134/2015 PS City-I Moga was cancelled (Niptara hoya). The copy of the apology le er, photocopy of receipt of Rs.1,87,000/- were taken into custody of vigilance Bureau as evidence and a statement of Sukhmandar Singh SEPO Administrator u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and is a ached with the challan along with memos.
On 06.07.2022, Smt. Anuradha, Superintendent in the office of Block Development & Panchayat Officer Sidhwan Bet District Ludhiana vide le er no.1479-80/ land branch dated 11.04.2022, le er no.1274, 75 dated 24.03.2022, Office Endst no.659-60 dated 18.02.2022, order Endst no.1906-10 dated 18.05.2022 and office Endst no.1802-09 dated 09.05.2022 (total pages 5 original) were produced before the IO Shri Kewal Krishan DSP on which on each le er accused Teja Singh VDO had signed once on each paper. The above le ers were taken into Vigilance Bureau custody vide recovery memo. The signatures of Smt. Anuradha Superintendent and Senior Constable Manpreet Singh no.1339/Ferozpur Vigilance Bureau Unit Moga as witnesses regarding above the statements of Smt. Anuradha Superintendent and Senior Constable Manpreet Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and have been a ached with this challan along with memos.
On 26.07.2022, during inves3ga3on of complaint no.76/2017-Moga embezzlement of Rs.3,70,000/- was found which was withdrawn through 15 different cheques between dated 13.07.2015 to 01.08.2015 by accused Teja Singh from the account of Gram Panchayat Bahona District Moga from the account no.914010002055694 in the name of development works by forging signatures of Sukhmander Singh Administrator and Sarabjit Singh. The above said cheques were taken into custody of Vigilance Bureau vide separate memos prepared on 24.05.2022. The above accused Teja Singh has signed his original signatures in English along with forged signatures of Sukhmander Singh and Sarabjit Singh in English and to get these compared, the Inves3ga3on Officer vide note no.940-VB Moga dated 25.07.2022 forwarding le er, prepared parcel with his seal KK with road cer3ficate no.22 dated 26.07.2022 sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, SAS Nagar through HC/PR Harbel Singh no.75/2092 VB Moga. In this connec3on, his statement u/s 151 Cr.P.C. was wri en. The analysis report regarding 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523 CRR-16200-2024 6 2024:PHHC:050523 above has been received which is reproduced in the next para. The above said forwarding note, road cer3ficate and the statement are a ached."
5. Counsel for the pe oner has argued that it is men oned in the report filed by the police under Sec on 173 CrPC that the pe oner had deposited the amount with an apology le<er with an explana on that the money was withdrawn by mistake. He further referred to the fact that the said apology le<er and photocopy of the receipt of Rs.
1,87,000/- were taken in custody by Vigilance Bureau and a statement of Sukhmander Singh, SEPO, Administrator was recorded in this regard.
6. An analysis of this argument leads pe oner to nowhere. Once the money was ini ally withdrawn without any authority, now it is to be seen during trial. Even if the misappropria on was temporary, it would not imply that a person would be absolved and cannot be prosecuted and this Court cannot disrupt criminal proceedings under Sec on 482 CrPC.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the summary of inves ga on made by the inves gator which forms part of the report filed under Sec on 173 CrPC and it reads as follows:
"I have carefully and thoroughly examined the red enclosed ques3oned signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q15, Q16 to Q41 and Q42 to Q72 and have compared them with the relevant standard signatures and wri3ng from the original documents in all aspects of hand wri3ng iden3fica3on and detec3on of forgery with the help of Scien3fic aids and it has been concluded that:-
1. The person who wrote the red enclosed standard signatures stamped and marked A3 to A42 and 537 to 581 also wrote the red enclosed ques3oned signatures similarly stamped and marked Q42 to Q71.
My this opinion of common authorship is based on the cumula3ve considera3on of the various similari3es found in the wri3ng habits in the ques3oned and standard. The red enclosed ques3oned signatures stamped and marked Q42 to Q71 when compared with the standard signatures similarly stamped and marked A3 to A42 and S37 to S81 show similari3es in the general and individual wri3ng habits. Some of the characteris3c similari3es in the individual wri3ng habits, such as in 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523 CRR-16200-2024 7 2024:PHHC:050523 the minute and inconspicuous details of forma3on of le ers and their combina3on etc. are illustrated below in the following features:-
1. Similar manner of execu3on of ini3al le er in its nature of loca3on of commencement body shape of body curves, their combining with each other and finish with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
2. Similar manner of execu3on of subsequent le er to ini3al le er in the nature of body shape with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
3. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'S' in its nature of shape of two curves and finish with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
4. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'm' in its nature of shape of two shoulders, their combining with each and finish with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
5. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'n' in its nature of start, shape of curves and combina3on with succeeding le er in the word 'Samundri with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
6. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'd' in its nature of staff, recurvesm, shape of body oval and combina3on with succeeding le er 'r' in the word 'Samundri' with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
7. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'r' in its nature of shape of eyelet and combina3on with succeeding le er 'l' in the word 'Samundri' with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
8. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'l' in its nature of shape of i-dot, staff and finish with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
9. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'V' in its nature of shape of body and combina3on with succeeding le er 'D' in the word 'VDO' with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
10. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'D' in its nature of start, body shape and combina3on with succeeding le er underline prime 'O' in the word 'VDO' with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
11. Similar manner of execu3on of le er 'O' in its nature of start, shape of body oval and finish with similar varia3on in the ques3oned and standard signatures.
1. In short all the significant features are occurring in the ques3oned signatures stamped and marked Q42 to Q71 are found similarly exemplified at one or the other place in the standard signatures and I do not find any characteris3c difference between them. The similari3es found between the ques3oned and standards are significant and sufficient and when considered collec3vely lead me to the opinion of their common authorship.
2. It has not been possible to express any definite opinion regarding the common authorship or otherwise on the red enclosed ques3oned signatures stamped and
7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523 CRR-16200-2024 8 2024:PHHC:050523 marked Q1 to Q15 in comparison with the red enclosed standard wri3ngs similarly stamped and marked S127 to S171.
3. It has not been possible to express any definite opinion regarding the common authorship or otherwise on the red enclosed ques3oned signatures stamped and marked Q16 to Q41 in comparison with the red enclosed standard wri3ngs similarly stamped and marked S82 to S126. Suitable and sufficient specimen wri3ngs along with admi ed wri3ngs of Teja Singh in 'English' already exis3ng on some documents and near about the period of ques3oned signatures containing similar le ers, words and combina3on as are available in the ques3oned signatures stamped and marked Q16 to Q41 are required for thorough scien3fic examina3on and de finite opinion.
The statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of C/Constable Navpreet Singh no.1300/Moga VB Unit Moga who brought the analysis report was recorded and kept as witness. The covering le er of the FSL along with analysis report and statement are a ached with the challan.
On 28.08.2023, sanc3on for prosecu3on issued by Under Secretary Government of Punjab Rural Development Panchayats Department Punjab SAS Nagar vide memo no.6 / 51 / 2013-1 RDE.2/5645 SAS Nagar dated 21.08.2023 along with sanc3on for prosecu3on dated 09.08.2023 was received from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police Vigilance Bureau Ferozpur Endst no.7546/VB/E-2 dated 25.08.2023.
8. Perusal of the above shows that this Court cannot exercise its power as envisaged under Sec on 482 CrPC. It is for the trial Court to look into the abovesaid evidence, whether the same is enough to frame charges or not. In this case, pe oner chose to use his statutory right under Sec on 482 CrPC instead to raise his all points and point out evidence before trial Court at the me of framing of charges. If everyone starts doing this, then the statutory provision would become redundant and this Court would become a Court to decide about framing of charges or discharge which is not the inten on of the Legislature.
9. An analysis of the above said inves ga on and the arguments addressed for its disrup on do not make out a case to disrupt the criminal proceedings at such a stage and the pe on deserves dismissal. However, it shall be permissible for the pe oner to file an applica on for discharge by precisely and briefly sta ng the reasons thereof and hoping that the applica on is precise, the trial Court is requested to answer all the points taken up in such applica on for discharge, if any filed.
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050523
CRR-16200-2024 9 2024:PHHC:050523
10. Given the discussions above, pe on is not worth issuing no ce to the respondent and for calling of response from the State. As such, pe on is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica ons, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
04.04.2024
Jyo3-II
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 01:36:13 :::