Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Misc.No.M-25314 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-25314 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision:19.03.2012
Bikramjit Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate,
with Mr.Deepinder Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Jasdev Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) Succinctly, the relevant facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record is that, a criminal case was registered against the main accused Sukhwinder Singh, Revenue Patwari and others, with the following allegations:-
"That Sukhwinder Singh, Revenue Patwari 218, Anand Nagar Colony, near Tehsil Samana District Patiala being Government employee and knowling fully well the rules of the Revenue Department, by getting prepared forged Fard from Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Meupal, resident of Mohalla Krishna Basti near Aggarwal Nursing Home Samana District Patiala, and knowing fully well the relationship of Rasminder Singh son of late Shri Jagir Singh resident of village Kheri Fattan Tehsil Samana District Patiala, who is in fact real relation (real brother in law) of Harjinder Kaur, with him, in conspiracy with Satwinder Kaur alias Binder Kaur wife of late Karnail Singh resident of Dirba District Sangrur, by putting up Satwinder Kaur against real Harjinder Kaur and by getting registered sale deed, and in this sale deed Sukhwinder Singh Ex.Sarpanch son of Shri Virsa Singh Criminal Misc.No.M-25314 of 2010 2 and Jarnail Singh Lambardar son of Shri Gurdial Singh, residents of village Kheri Fattan, and knowing Harjinder Kaur being resident of Kheri Fattan, by forming a gang, got forged sale deed in favour of Ganpat Rai, Jai Gopal, Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Mool Raj sons of Puran Chand son of Ramji Dass resident of Chhat and Karam Singh son of Mehma Singh resident of Bakarpur Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali, in equal shares, without the consent of Harjinder Kaur. The land of Harjinder Kaur measuring 107 Kanals 10 Marlas has been sold for Rs.48 lacs. The actual price of this land was Rs.1 crore 72 lacs, as it has been found that the agreement to sell this land was Rs.1 crore 72 lacs. In this way, Sukhwinder Singh Patwari Halqa, Samana, Rashminder Singh son of Jagir Singh resident of village Kheri Fattan, Tehsil Samana, Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha, Ex Sarpanch, village Kheri Fatten, Jarnail Singh son of Gurdial Singh, Lambardar resident of village Kheri Fattan, Ravinder Kumar son of Meupal resident of Mohalla Krishan Basti Samana and Satwinder Kaur alias Binder Kaur widow of Karnail Singh resident of Dirba District Sangrur, have committed offences under Sections 416, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988."
2. As indicated earlier, in the background of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the main accused Sukhwinder Singh and others, vide FIR No.3 dated 10.01.2008(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 416, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), by the police of Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.
3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report against the main accused in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. In other words, neither the complainant named, nor raised any accusing finger against the petitioner, in any manner of conspiracy, for the commission of any indicated offences registered against the other main accused.
4. Subsequently, the police recorded the supplementary statements Criminal Misc.No.M-25314 of 2010 3 (Annexures R-I and R-II) of PWs Karam Singh and Sewa Singh on 20.12.2008 and submitted the supplementary challan(Annexure P-2) under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., involving the petitioner-accused Bikramjit Singh, as an accused as well.
5. Petitioner-Bikramjit Singh did not feel satisfied with the addition of his name as an accused in the case and preferred the present petition, for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1), supplementary challan(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. The case set-up by the petitioner, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, he has been falsely implicated, after fabricating the false version at the belated stage, that the main accused Sukhwinder Singh, Revenue Patwari, had purchased the Accent Car bearing registration No.PB-42-B-0330 in his(petitioner) name, who happens to be his nephew. No other overt-act or specific role is attributed to the petitioner. He was stated to have been involved on account of baseless and bald allegations and no case whatsoever is made out against him. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and supplementary challan(Annexure P-2) in the manner depicted hereinabove.
7. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Nirmaljit Kaur, J.) passed the following order on October 29, 2010:-
"It is contended that the FIR was lodged under Sections 416, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against one Sukhwinder Singh, Revenue Patwari. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. However, subsequently, the supplementary challan was presented. In the said supplementary challan, the allegation is that Sukhwinder Singh, Revenue Patwari bought a car in the name of his nephew Bikramjit Singh i.e., the present petitioner and presented to his daughter in her wedding in dowry. It is alleged that Sukhwinder Singh is paying the installments.Criminal Misc.No.M-25314 of 2010 4
Be that as it may, the fact is that the said car has been bought in the name of petitioner after obtaining loan from the ICICI Bank. Thus, the petitioner cannot be made an accused by virtue of Section 120-B of the IPC in an FIR lodged against Sukhwinder Singh.
Notice of motion for 19.01.2011.
Meanwhile, further proceedings in pursuance to the supplementary challan qua the present petitioner only shall remain stayed. However, the proceedings qua the other accused shall continue."
8. In pursuance thereof, the respondent-State of Punjab, appeared, refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. According to the State that, during the investigation, it has come to light that the main accused Sukhwinder Singh purchased the car in question in the name of the petitioner, after obtaining the loan of Rs.5 lacs from ICICI Bank. He(Sukhwinder Singh) is paying the installments of loan in the name of the petitioner. In this manner, the petitioner was stated to have conspired with the main accused. The prosecution has also attached the supplementary statements (Annexures R-I and R-II) of PWs Karam Singh and Sewa Singh. It will not be out of place to mention here that the State has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted as regards the case of the petitioner is concerned.
10. Ex facie, the argument of the learned State Counsel that, since the main accused Sukhwinder Singh has purchased the car in question, after obtaining the loan of Rs.5 lacs from ICICI Bank and is paying the installments in the name of the petitioner, so, no ground for quashing the criminal prosecution against him (petitioner) is made out, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. Criminal Misc.No.M-25314 of 2010 5
11. As is evident from the record that, initially a criminal case was registered against the main accused Sukhwinder Singh and others, vide FIR (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the indicated offences. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report against the main accused under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In this manner, neither the complainant named, nor raised any accusing finger against the petitioner, in any manner of conspiracy, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 416, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The present case was registered against the main accused on 10.01.2008, whereas the police was stated to have recorded the supplementary statements (Annexures R-I and R-II) of PWs Karam Singh and Sewa Singh on 20.12.2008, i.e., after a period of more than eleven months of registration of the case, on the basis of which, subsequently, supplementary challan(Annexure P-2) was submitted against him. Moreover, the only allegations alleged against the petitioner are that the main accused Sukhwinder Singh, Revenue Patwari has purchased the car in question, after obtaining a loan of Rs.5 lacs from ICICI Bank and is paying the installments in the name of the petitioner. It has also so stated by PWs Karam Singh and Sewa Singh. No other overt-act or any particular role is assigned to the petitioner.
12. Assuming for the sake of arguments (though not admitted), if the allegations and statements of PWs are believed to be true as such, even then no offence of criminal conspiracy is made out against the petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner is, in any way, connected with the commission of forgery or cheating along with the other main accused. There is neither any allegations against him(petitioner), nor the learned State Counsel has pointed out any evidence, much less cogent, even to suggest remotely as to how, in what manner and under what circumstances, the petitioner has connived with the Criminal Misc.No.M-25314 of 2010 6 other co-accused, for the commission of the indicated offences, particularly when no other overt-act, is attributed to him in this relevant connection.
13. Meaning thereby, the bare reading of the supplementary challan (Annexure P-2) and in the absence of any material, much less cogent, to me, no offence of criminal conspiracy is made out against the petitioner. The allegations made in the supplementary challan, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie do not constitute/disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. The allegations made in the supplementary challan(Annexure P-2) against the petitioner are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The police appears to have vexatiously and maliciously involved the petitioner, in order to wreak vengeance and in an attempt to strengthen the prosecution case against the other main accused. Therefore, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is manifestly attended with malafide against him, that too without any basis/evidence. Such reckless/malafide supplementary challan deserves to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases State of Haryana and others Versus Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal Versus Government of Karnataka, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. If such criminal prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioner, which is not legally permissible.
14. Thus, seen from any angle and keeping the above-mentioned facts alleged against the petitioner into focus, to my mind, the criminal prosecution against him is sheer and complete misuse/abuse of process of law. The matter squarely falls within the purview of Bench-mark set out in the aforesaid judgments. In this manner, the contrary arguments of the learned State Counsel Criminal Misc.No.M-25314 of 2010 7 that the criminal conspiracy to commit the indicated offence is made out against the petitioner, "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is fully attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Hence, the supplementary challan (Annexure P-2) all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner only, cannot legally be sustained and deserves to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
16. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the case against the main accused, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1), supplementary challan(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom with regard and relatable to the petitioner-Bikramjit Singh only, are hereby quashed. He is accordingly discharged from the indicated criminal case.
17. Needless to mention that, nothing recorded hereinabove, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the course of trial of the case against the main accused, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant context.
March 19, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE