Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 January, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
CRM No. M-2614 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-2614 of 2014
Date of Decision: 28.01.2014
Randhir Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present:- Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** SURINDER GUPTA, J This petition has been filed by petitioner-Randhir Sharma, seeking the prayer for quashing the order dated 06.12.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-4), passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
The facts in brief are that the FIR No.428 dated 14.12.2006 under Section 420/120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar was registered on the complaint of Harmohini Sharma (since deceased). As per complainant (Harmohini Sharma), she had faith in accused-Karaj Singh and used to treat him as his son. Karaj Vandana 2014.02.04 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-2614 of 2014 2 Singh was the close friend of her son. She owned a plot No.869 measuring 100 sq. yards situated at Beauty Avenue, Amritsar. She executed general power of attorney of said plot in favour of Karaj Singh authorising him to take care of the plot , but not to alienate the same. However, Karaj Singh without the consent of the complainant sold the plot and did not pay the sale consideration to the complainant.
On complaint to the police, a case for offence under Section 420 IPC was registered vide FIR No.428 of 2006 at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.
During the pendency of the trial, an application was moved by the prosecution for summoning Ajay Puri respondent as accused. The application was declined by the trial Court. The allegations levelled against Ajay Puri were that he was a party to the criminal conspiracy for commission of offence under Section 420 by Karaj Singh.
The trial Court found that there was no evidence to summon Ajay Puri as accused. He (Ajay Puri) was rather counsel for Harmohini Sharma-complainant in various cases. The plea was raised before the trial Court that as counsel-Ajay Puri met Harmohini Sharma and got executed the power of attorney in favour of Karaj Singh but this was not substantiated by any evidence on file.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that an affidavit (Annexure P-5) was given by Karaj Singh whereby he had agreed to pay `7 lac to Mrs. Harmohini Sharma. On that Vandana 2014.02.04 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-2614 of 2014 3 affidavit, Advocate Ajay Puri had made endorsement that "he knew the deponent personally and he had signed in his presence." Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that this shows the affinity of Ajay Puri with Karaj Singh.
The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. If an advocate has identified someone on his affidavit, it does not mean that he has committed any offence, rather this affidavit was in favour of Harmohini Sharma and binds Karaj Singh to pay `7 Lac to her.
The trial Court has observed that Harmohini Sharma has not mentioned the name of Ajay Puri in her complaint. The revisional Court while declining the revision petition has found no role of respondent No.2 in the alleged fraud by Karaj Singh and observed as follows:-
"In my considered opinion, the complainant Harmohini Sharma had executed general power of attorney in favour of Karaj Singh so as to look after her vacant plot. However, Karaj Singh deceived complainant Harmohini Sharma and sold the plot behind the back of the complainant and caused wrongful loss to her. Thereupon Smt. Harmohini Sharma lodged a complaint against Karaj Singh on the basis of which FIR No.428/2007 u/s.420, 120-B IPC was registered against the accused. During the investigation by the police, an inquiry was conducted by DSP, City (D), Amritsar and thereafter opinion of District Attorney, Amritsar was obtained and then accused Karaj Singh was booked u/s. 420, 120-B of IPC. Neither in the execution of the Vandana 2014.02.04 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-2614 of 2014 4 general power of attorney in favour of Karaj Singh nor in the sale of plot by Karaj Singh, there is any role played by Ajay Puri, Advocate. Harmohini Sharma had thereafter filed a civil suit against Karaj Singh through Advocate Ajay Puri. If any illegal act has been committed by Advocate Ajay Puri in filing of the suit, then that is a separate matter for which separate remedy may be availed by the petitioner. The case in hand only pertains to fraud committed by Karaj Singh against Harmohini Sharma as regards the illegal sale of her plot. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held by the Court that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application u/s.319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist for summoning of Sh. Ajay Puri, Advocate as a co-accused. As such, I do not find any illegality or mistake in the impugned order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned trial Court."
On going through the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, I find no factual or legal infirmity in the impugned orders, calling for any interference by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are no merits in this petition.
Dismissed in limine.
(SURINDER GUPTA)
January 28, 2014 JUDGE
vandana
Vandana
2014.02.04 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document