Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Kaur And Another vs Tarlok Singh on 12 March, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
Crl. Misc. No. M 34257 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Crl. Misc. No. M 34257 of 2011
Date of decision: 12.03.2014
Paramjit Kaur and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
Tarlok Singh .......Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-
Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. C S Rana, Advocate
for the respondent
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J.
The present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'IPC') has been filed seeking quashing of complaint bearing No. 299/1 dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P1), summoning order dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure P9) and proceedings emanating therefrom being abuse of process of law.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that rent petition No. 398 dated 21.07.1998 was filed by petitioner No. 1 against the complainant (respondent herein) seeking his ejectment from portion of shed measuring Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.03.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 34257 of 2011 2 60' - 6" x 30' approximately and one store measuring 17' - 3" x 13'- 6" of plot No. 17, 18 and 19, situated at Sainik Colony, Hira Nagar, Ludhiana on the premise that he was inducted as a tenant on 01.10.1996 @ Rs.10,000/- per month. The complainant, on receipt of notice, appeared in the proceedings through counsel and filed vakaltnama and the case was fixed for filing of written statement but he absented from the proceedings and ultimately ex- parte ejectment order dated 30.11.1998 (Annexure P2) was passed against him. Petitioner No. 1 filed civil suit No. 13 dated 30.01.1999 for recovery of Rs.2,46,000/- towards arrears of rent. In the said suit, the complainant put in appearance, but later absented from the proceedings and as a result, ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.10.1999 (Annexure P3) was passed against him. Petitioner No. 1 filed application No. 12 dated 10.11.1999 for execution of judgment and decree dated 22.10.1999. In the execution application, machinery of the complainant was attached and auctioned on 03.02.2001 and a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- was realized from the said sale. For realization of the remaining amount, warrants of arrest of the complainant were issued for 03.05.2002. The complainant filed Civil Revision No. 2574 of 2002 before this Court to challenge order dated 03.05.2002, which was dismissed by this Court on 15.05.2002 (Annexure P6). The executing Court again issued warrants of arrest for 03.08.2002 and the complainant again filed Civil Revision No. 3264 of 2002 which was dismissed by this Court on 17.09.2002 with costs of Rs.10,000/- by order dated 17.09.2002 (Annexure P7). The complainant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC') for setting aside judgment and decree dated 22.10.1999 which was dismissed in default on 28.10.2002. Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.03.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 34257 of 2011 3 Thereafter, the complainant filed an application dated 26.02.2003 for restoration of the application filed under order IX Rule 13 CPC. Another application was filed by him for stay of the execution proceedings till the decision of the application for restoration of proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 09.01.2004 and further issued conditional warrants of arrest of the complainant. The complainant filed another application for review of the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.01.2005 .
Counsel has further argued that on the basis of ejectment order, passed in favour of petitioner No. l, possession of the rented premises was delivered in favour of petitioner No. 1 in the year 1999. Failing in his efforts to thwart the proceedings in regard to execution of decree for recovery of outstanding arrears of rental passed as back as in the year 1999, the complainant in a deceitful manner filed the criminal complaint in November 2007 on the allegations that rent note dated 01.08.1997, showing the complainant to be a tenant of accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1 herein) of the tenancy premises @ Rs.10,000/- per month has been forged on a blank signed stamp paper, which was taken by Shri Joginder Singh (since deceased) father of Kulwinder Singh and father-in-law of Paramjit Kaur alias Manjit Kaur (petitioner Nos. 2 and 1 respectively) when the complainant obtained some loan from said Joginder Singh in the year 1997.
It is argued with vehemence that rent Note dated 01.08.1997 was the subject matter of eviction proceedings initiated by petitioner No. 1 which culminated in ejectment order passed against the complainant as back as in the year 1998. The facts that the complainant did not contest the Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.03.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 34257 of 2011 4 aforesaid proceedings despite receipt of notice and engaging a counsel and suffered an ex parte eviction order and actual eviction in pursuance of that eviction order, goes a long way to show that the complainant has filed a false case in November 2007 in order to wriggle out of his liability to pay the outstanding amount in view of decree passed by the civil Court in the year 1999. It is further submitted that had it been true that the petitioners prepared a forged rent note and used the same in Court proceedings for seeking eviction of the complainant and recovery of arrears of rental, there was no reason for the complainant to wait till November 2007 in filing the present complaint, who had been filing repeated applications and petitions before the Courts below and also filed two revision petitions before this Court. It is strenuously argued that keeping in view the back ground of the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings in the circumstances, is nothing, but an abuse and misuse of process of law. The complainant intentionally concealed the various proceedings which remained pending between the parties from 1997 till November 2007.
Counsel for the complainant (respondent herein), on the contrary, submitted that the complainant has raised specific allegations that he got loan from Joginder Singh in the year 1997 and at that time, Joginder Singh obtained blank signed stamp papers, which he failed to return despite the loan being repaid by the complainant. It is further argued that disputed questions of fact cannot be allowed to be raised or adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. It is submitted that the complainant is the victim of the entire litigation initiated by the petitioners, therefore, they do not deserve indulgence of this Court in exercise of Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.03.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 34257 of 2011 5 jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Counsel for the complainant has not denied various facts pleaded by the petitioners in regard to eviction proceedings, civil suit for recovery of outstanding arrears of rental, execution of decree passed by the civil Court, auction proceedings for the recovery of decretal amount, issuance of warrants of arrest against the complainant, dismissal of revision petitions preferred by him before this Court and so on.
Counsel for the complainant has also not disputed that possession of the tenancy premises was taken over by the petitioners in the year 1999, though, he has submitted that it was taken forcibly. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant ever raised any protest against the said forcible dispossession. It is not the plea of the respondent that he did not put in appearance before the Court in the eviction proceedings as well as in the civil suit, wherein some advocate filed power of attorney on his behalf. The long silence of the complainant till November 2007 creates a serious doubt in his story that the rent note, basis of the proceedings seeking eviction as well as recovery is the result of forgery. No doubt, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code would not adjudicate disputed questions of fact requiring the parties to lead evidence, but at the same time, if the criminal proceedings appear to be abuse of process of law, there is no reason to refrain from exercising jurisdiction for the purposes contemplated i.e. to prevent abuse and misuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice.
This apart, as per para 3 of the complaint, in the year 1997, the Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.03.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 34257 of 2011 6 complainant got some loan from Joginder Singh, father of accused No. 2 (petitioner No. 2 herein) and gave him stamp papers of Rs.5/- i.e. Rs.2+2+1 and another blank signed stamp paper of Rs.10.00, signed by the wife of the complainant. Further averred that the complainant returned the loan amount to the father of accused No.2, but he did not return the blank signed stamp papers aforesaid. Later, the matter was compromised and father of accused promised to return the blank signed stamp papers vide one writing dated 05.02.1998.
Admittedly, Shri Joginder Singh passed away in the year 1999. The allegations aforesaid are quite vague because no date, month and amount of loan has been mentioned. Similarly, no date, month and year when the complainant returned the said loan to Shri Joginder Singh is mentioned. There is no explanation as to for what purpose, the complainant gave so many stamp papers to Shri Joginder Singh.
It appears that feeling frustrated due to failure of the complainant to stall execution proceedings filed by petitioner No. 1 to realize the outstanding amount, part whereof was recovered by auction of machinery belonging to the complainant and apprehending his arrest in those proceedings in execution of warrants of arrest issued by the Court, the complainant under some wrong legal advice filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive to put pressure upon the petitioners to succumb to the terms and conditions to be fixed by him. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to conclude that the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant are nothing, but an abuse of process of Court, which cannot be allowed to continue.
Bimbra Mohan Lal2014.03.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 34257 of 2011 7
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed, complaint bearing No. 299/1 dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P1), summoning order dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure P9) and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.
No order as to costs.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 12.03.2014 mohan Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.03.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh