Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajat Rajendra Singhal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 December, 2016
Author: A.B. Chaudhari
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 & 1
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: December 21, 2016
CRM-M-13784 of 2013
Rajat Rajendra Singhal
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
Rajender Singla and others
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI
Present: Mr. K.S. Banyana, Advocate for
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
None for the petitioners (in CRM-M-37302 of 2015).
Mr. A.S. Yadav, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J
In these two petitions, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of FIR No.26 dated 26.01.2012, under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'),
registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 was filed by Rajat Rajendra
Singhal while CRM-M-37302 of 2015 filed by Rajender Singla,
Dheeraj Singla and Suneel Kumar Gupta.
For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-37302-2015
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 20:59:44 :::
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 & 2
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
FACTS
Respondent No.2-Ram Chander Singh son of Sh. Sube
Singh, resident of Village Karala, Delhi had lodged the above said FIR
with the Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, on
26.01.2012. In the FIR, which was sent through dak from the office of
Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra to the aforesaid Police Station,
he stated that in the year 2004-2005, Municipal Committee Shopping
Complex was to be constructed in Thanesar and M/s Sarvottam
Construction Company had applied for the work by tender. He stated
that when M/s Sarvottam Construction had applied for enlistment, it
came to know that the experience of Sh. Dharampal, one of the partner
of the firm, was not sufficient to get Class-I contractor certificate and
therefore, the firm included Sunil Kumar Gupta for obtaining Class-I
enlistment certificate and thus, cheated the Government by preparing
two separate partnerships for one firm including the name of Sunil
Kumar Gupta. This fact is corroborated from the Power of Attorney
dated 01.01.2005 in which there is only 4 partners except Sunil Kumar
Gupta. The allegations were therefore, that another partnership deed
was prepared in order to get the said certificate. It was thus, alleged
that there was a fraud and forgery. The complaint appears to have been
sent by respondent No.2, who is the resident of Delhi and the same
was received by Police Station City Thanesar through dak from the
office of Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. After registration of
the offences, investigation was completed by the police. It is this FIR,
For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-37302-2015
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 20:59:44 :::
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 & 3
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
which is under challenge in the present both these petitions.
SUBMISSIONS
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in both these petitions,
submitted that the FIR out and out is false and having no connection
with respondent No.2 who was merely a driver of respondent No.3
who had family dispute with one of the petitioners. Respondent No.2
is a resident of Delhi and has absolutely, no connection to lodge FIR in
relation to the work of construction of Municipal Committee Shopping
complex at Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Learned counsel then
submitted that in respect of the work in the year 2004-2005, the FIR
was got lodged in the year 2011 as aforesaid which is self-showed that
the same was delayed and bogus. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioners, even otherwise reading of the FIR, nowhere makes out
any case for registration of FIR as aforesaid. He relied on the several
grounds taken in the present petition for quashing the FIR. He, then
contended that now respondent No.2-Ram Chander Singh son of Sube
Singh has also filed an affidavit dated 08.09.2015 in this Court by way
of reply to these petitions that he does not want to pursue the present
FIR and has no objection, if the same is quashed by this Court since
respondent No.3-Dheeraj Garg son of Krishan Kumar Garg has arrived
at a compromise and also filed reply by way of affidavit that he has no
concern with the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners,
therefore, contended that for the above reasons, the FIR and
consequent proceedings are required to be quashed in both these
For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-37302-2015
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 20:59:44 :::
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 & 4
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
petitions.
Learned State counsel invited my attention to the reply by
way of affidavit of Satish Gautam, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of
Police (HQ), Kurukshetra and contended that investigation was
conducted in fair and impartial manner and report under Section 173
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted against the
petitioners and co-accused in the concerned Court. Learned State
counsel , therefore, prayed for dismissal of these petitions.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 appears and filed
another affidavit of respondent No.2 in response to the show-cause
notice of this Court stating that he had decided to agree for quashment
of FIR as the case was lingering and left out to the Court to make
suitable orders.
CONSIDERATIONS
This Court vide order dated 23.08.2016, at the time of
hearing these two petitions, made following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both these
cases.
My attention has been invited to the affidavit (Annexure
P-9) filed by respondent No.2-Ram Chander Singh son of Sube
Singh who had set the criminal law in motion as a result of
which, FIR in question was registered in the year 2012 and the
entire State machinery was moved. Challan was also filed.
Now, in the affidavit of respondent No.2, it is stated in Para-1
that he does not want to pursue the present FIR. Though
served, none appears for respondent No.2 before this Court
today.
For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-37302-2015
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 20:59:44 :::
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 & 5
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
Respondent No.2 is put a notice on show-cause as to
why exemplary costs in the sum of `1 lacs in each case, should
not be recovered from him and paid to the State of Haryana in
the above background.
List again on 30.09.2016.
Ad-interim stay of the proceedings till then.
Learned counsel for the petitioners are expected to
inform the next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court, in
writing to respondent No.2 and place on record the proof.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the another
connected case file."
In response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, respondent
No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that since proceedings were
lingering, he agreed for quashment of the FIR. It is in the light of the
attitude of respondent No.2 to blow hot and cold, this Court was
prima-facie of the opinion that respondent No.2 has abused the process
of rule of law and therefore, should be imposed with exemplary costs
and also to proceed against him for interfering in the administration of
the criminal justice system.
Be that as it may, coming back to the merits of the present
matters, I have already reproduced the crux of the FIR that was lodged
by respondent No.2. Upon careful reading of the entire FIR, it will be
clearly seen that same was lodged after 7 years of the alleged date of
occurrence of the incident for which there is no explanation anywhere.
Assuming no such explanation is required, looking at the FIR carefully
shows that except for making the allegation that some Power of
Attorney dated 01.01.2005 shows that M/s Sarvottam Construction
For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-37302-2015
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 20:59:44 :::
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 & 6
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
Company has only 4 persons and name of Sunil Kumar Gupta was not
mentioned only, there is no other allegation about any fraud, forgery or
as the case may be. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 is a
driver who resides at Delhi and working as a driver, suddenly came
down to Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and lodge FIR in question,
that too after 7 years of the date of occurrence, without indicating as to
how he was aggrieved or concerned with the contract of construction
of the Municipal Committee Shopping Complex at Thanesar when he
had nothing to do with the place Thanesar being the resident of Delhi.
There is no allegation anyway that the work done by the petitioners'
firm was anyway of bad quality or not upkeeping with the standards.
On the contrary, record shows that there is certificate about
satisfactory completion of work. Thus, the only allegation made
against the petitioners is that they have prepared some forged Power of
Attorney and included the name of Sunil Kumar Gupta as additional
partner in the firm. Beyond this, there is nothing in the FIR which
cause to any offence as registered with the Police Station Thanesar.
The reply by way of affidavit filed by the learned State counsel read
thus:-
"xxxx. Further, a power of attorney dated 01.01.2005
shows that Ms/ Sarvotam Construction Company has four
partners nameky Sh. Rajinder Singal, Sh. Dharampal, Sh.
Rajat Singal and Sh. Dheeraj Singal. Name of Sh. Sunil
Kumar was not mentioned in it. A forged certificate
mentioning that Sh. Sunil Kumar is share holder to the
extent of 50% in M/s Naresh Kumar Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-37302-2015
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 20:59:44 :::
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 & 7
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
was also used by M/s Sarvotam Construction Company.
A forged and fabricated certificate from M/s Goel
and associates was also arranged by M/s Sarvotam
Construction Company wherein it was mentioned that M/s
Sarvotam Construction Company is working with it for a
number of years and it has experience of undertakingwork
of crores of rupees.
That investigation of above said case FIR No.26
dated 26.01.12 was conducted in a fair and impartial
manner. During investigation, it was found that the
petitioner was also beneficiary of the firm and two
partnership deeds were prepared in the same date for the
same firm and some other relevant record was also taken
in possession. The allegations against petitioner along
with other co-accused were established during
investigation, so report under section 173 Cr. P.C. was
submitted against petitioner and his co-accused persons in
the concerned court. xxxx."
A perusal of the above reply by way of affidavit shows that
in fact, there is no offence at all made out from the reading of the FIR
or whatever has been stated in the reply by way of affidavit aforesaid.
The State is not disputing about the satisfactory completion of work
nor there is answer given by the State as to the locus standi of
respondent No.2 to lodge FIR with the Police Station Thanesar, in
respect of the work of Municipal Committee Shopping Complex being
the resident of Delhi and has nothing to do with the place Thanesar. In
my opinion, it is a clear case of abuse of process of law by respondent
No.2 and accordingly, he is liable to be prosecuted in the criminal
For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-37302-2015
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 20:59:44 :::
CRM-M-13784 of 2013 & 8
CRM-M-37302 of 2015
contempt proceedings for interference in the criminal justice delivery
system. However, taking a magnanimity, I think, looking to the entire
matter, there is no need to add one more case particularly, when
respondent No.2 is working as a driver. Respondent No.2 however,
deserves to be given some punishment and in that view of the matter, I
think, he must be asked to deposit costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with
the office of Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. In the result,
following order will have to be passed:-
ORDER
(i) CRM-M-13784 of 2013 and CRM-M-37302 of 2015 are allowed;
(ii) FIR No.26 dated 26.01.2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra including the charge, challan before the trial Court stands quashed and set aside;
(iii) Respondent No.2 shall pay costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with the office of Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the same shall be recovered by Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra in accordance with law.
(A.B. CHAUDHARI) JUDGE December 21, 2016 mahavir Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-37302-2015 8 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 20:59:44 :::