Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sat Pal Verma And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 February, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Misc.-M No. 13987 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.-M No. 13987 of 2011
Date of decision : 13.02.2013
Sat Pal Verma and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate
for the petitioners
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG Haryana
for the State
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner No. 2 and her father petitioner No. 1 have filed present petition for quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and the summoning order that has followed on the basis of this complaint. The petitioners stand summoned for an offence under Section 341, 348, 406, 120-B IPC. This summoning order is passed in the background of following facts:-
Petitioner No. 2 married Deepak Sikka son of respondent No. 2 on 06.04.2006. They both live together at Faridabad. Some differences arose between the couple for which FIR under Section 498-A IPC was registered by the petitioners against respondent No. 2 and his son. The same is pending at District Court Panipat. As counter blast to this FIR, respondent No. 2 has got registered an FIR No. 218 dated 26.05.2007 under Sections 340, 341, 342, 348, 383,384, 406, 420, 120-B IPC. This FIR was not only against the Criminal Misc.-M No. 13987 of 2011 2 petitioners but against one Smt. Neelam Verma, Smt. Mamta Sehgal and S.I. Chhatarpal of Indrapurma, Police Station District Faridabad.
The petitioners would term this FIR to be false. Finding it so the police had submitted a cancellation report on 05.08.2007.
Aggrieved against this cancellation, respondents filed a complaint on 08.05.2007. On the basis of this complaint, the present petitioners have been summoned whereas the other persons named in the FIR i.e. Smt. Neelam Verma, Smt. Mamta Sehgal and S.I. Chhatarpal have been left out. The plea of the petitioners is that same very allegations were found false and the cancellation report was submitted. They have been now summoned for the same allegation which would be abuse of process of Court.
The petitioners would also refer to a compromise dated 27.02.2007 where it is mentioned that a Cheque No. 7963261 dated 27.03.2007 for an amount of ` 5,44,000/- was handed over to the petitioners by the complainant's side. The said compromise was signed by Sh. Ram Nath Sikka - respondent No. 2, his son Deepak Sikka and Kamlesh Sikka. As per this compromise the complainant had also agreed to return the Jewelry to the petitioner side. Whereas in the complaint, it has been alleged that the signatures of the son of the complainant was obtained on a blank cheque under threat. In any event the cheque which was statedly obtained or presented for encashment was dishonored. This led to filing of a complaint by the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Son of the complainant was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed rigorous imprisonment for 2 Criminal Misc.-M No. 13987 of 2011 3 years coupled with fine of Rs. 25,000/- The appeal filed against this order has also been dismissed.
As a matter of fact, even the divorce petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by son of the complainant which ended into compromise before Permanent Lok Adalat on 13.09.2008. Without appreciating these documents, learned JMIC has illegally and unlawfully summoned the petitioners. They, accordingly, have approached this Court quashing the complaint and the summoning order.
Notice of motion in this case was issued and further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed.
Present petition was admitted on 17.07.2012 and the interim order was continued. Now the case has came up for hearing.
None has appeared for the private respondent No. 2. State, however, has filed reply washing its hands off to say that it was not arrayed as a party in the complaint. No investigation in this complaint was conducted. Accordingly, the State would contend that no cause of action is proved against the official respondents. On this ground they would pray for dismissal of the complaint and the summoning order qua official respondents.
Since no reply has been filed. Averments made in the petition are not in dispute otherwise also I have considered the submissions made before me.
Petitioner No. 2 is a wife who seems to be a victim in all this episode. Firstly she was harassed for demand of dowry, when Criminal Misc.-M No. 13987 of 2011 4 she filed a complaint in this regard. FIR was registered under Section 498-A IPC. As a counter blast, respondent No. 2 had also lodged an FIR which was investigated and found to be false. Cancellation report was, accordingly, submitted but at that stage present complaint was filed which has led to the summoning of the petitioners. The allegations made in the complaint are that the petitioners forcibly obtained cheque from son of respondent No. 2 by exerting pressure through police officer. The police officer was also joined as one of the accused against whom the allegations are made by respondent No. 2. In the complaint, the police officer as well as two ladies who were also named in the FIR have not been summoned. The allegation was that respondents were forced to pay this unsigned blank cheque. Thus, the allegation to an extent would get dented. If there was any pressure it ought to have been by the police officer and once the Court has not considered it appropriate to summon such an police officer as an accused the allegations of putting pressure by the police certainly can not now be established by the complainant respondent.
Even otherwise, it is justifiably pointed out that the cheque which was given by the respondent was submitted for an encashment and the said cheque was dishonoured. For this, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against son of respondent No. 2. One of the grounds for which the petitioners have been summoned is under Section 348 and 341 IPC. Obviously it is the falsity of allegation which is alleged against the petitioners. This would to an extent be negatived by finding Criminal Misc.-M No. 13987 of 2011 5 returned by the Court which has convicted son of respondent No. 2 and has imposed rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the offences were bailable. If the son of the petitioner was forced to give this cheque was required to plead before the Court which convicted him. Indeed, the respondents have raised such pleas. These pleas were not accepted by the Court and end result was conviction of son of respondent No. 2. He filed an appeal against the said finding but has not succeeded.
That being the position, no allegation against respondent No. 2 or his son to give this cheque otherwise stands against the petitioners. Apparently this complaint has been filed as a counter blast to and to escape of the payment of rupees over 5 lacs.
In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, JT 1990 (4) SC 650, the parameters and the grounds on which the FIR can be quashed have been laid down. The principles of law enunciated by the Court, as these would emerge from the series of decisions noticed in this case is that the exercise of extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised on various grounds given therein. To give list of kinds of cases where such powers should be exercised, the Court has given following guidelines:-
"1. where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
2. where the allegations in the First Information Report Criminal Misc.-M No. 13987 of 2011 6 and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
3. where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
4. where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
5. where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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 the accused;
6. where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
7. where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
In my view the present case where the petitioners have been summoned would be a fit case under the parametres laid down Criminal Misc.-M No. 13987 of 2011 7 in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). This complaint is to wreak vengeance against the petitioners. The present complaint and the summoning order is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and there is no justification for permitting the further trial and prosecution of the petitioners.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint and the order summoning against the petitioners under Sections 341, 348, 406, 120-B IPC is hereby quashed.
February 13, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) reena JUDGE