Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 October, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
CRR No.1669 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1669 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 10, 2014
Sher Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
***
Kuldip Singh J.
CRM No.40245 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 377 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRR No.1669 of 2011 Sher Singh, petitioner filed this revision petition against order dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad, whereby respondent Nos.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences under Sections 409 and 506 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC after reversing the order dated 19.02.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, vide which they were SARITA RANI 2014.10.13 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1669 of 2011 (O&M) -2- summoned to face trial on the complaint filed by Sher Singh, petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that Sher Singh, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents before learned Judicial magistrate 1st Class, Faidabad under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B and 506 IPC. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased one TATA vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38H-8535 for business purpose. The said vehicle was financed by Magma Leasing Limited, New Delhi in the year 2002. At that time, accused, who are the officials of said Magma Leasing Limited obtained his signatures on some blank papers including six cheques. The complainant was making repayment of the installments regularly. Later on, the matter was settled between the parties in the year 2006. The complainant made one time payment of the balance outstanding amount of `3,56,363/- to accused No.4 ( Godhan, Cashier of the Magma Leasing Limited) and 'No Objection Certificate' was issued in the name of the complainant regarding said vehicle. The complainant deposited all requisite documents to the Registering Authority, Faridabad for cancellation of hypothecation. The Registering Authority after due verification, cancelled the hypothecation.
In October 2006, the complainant while riding the said vehicle was going towards Mathura. One Jagbir son of Paras Ram was also accompanied him. When they reached Bus Stand, Ballabgarh, some unknown persons, who were travelling in a Sumo SARITA RANI 2014.10.13 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1669 of 2011 (O&M) -3- vehicle gave signal to the complainant to stop the vehicle. When the complainant stopped his vehicle, complainant and his driver were beaten up and the vehicle TATA 709 was forcibly snatched. On the asking of the complainant, he was told that they are the authorized gunda agents of accused No.1 (Sanjay Chamariya, Director of Magma Leasing Limited) and that there was outstanding amount against the complainant. The complainant visited the office of accused No.1 and requested him to return the vehicle as he had made full and final payment. Thereafter, the accused through their Counsel issued a notice to the complainant on 12.02.2008, in which he had refused to return the vehicle.
After recording the evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad summoned all the three accused (private respondents) in the present case for offences under Sections 409, 120-B and 506 IPC.
Being aggrieved with the said order, the accused preferred a revision before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-2) and after setting aside the summoning order dated 19.02.2009, dismissed the complaint.
Complainant Sher Singh being aggrieved with the said order has preferred this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.
Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, SARITA RANI 2014.10.13 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1669 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Faridabad exercised the revisional powers. The scope of the revisional power was discussed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of "Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another", (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein it was observed as under:
"Section 397 Cr.P.C. vests the court with the power to call for an examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Reversional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are no exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits."
It was further observed as under:
"20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Thought the section does not specifically use the expression "prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice", the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise SARITA RANI 2014.10.13 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1669 of 2011 (O&M) -5- of jurisdiction under Section 397but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily."
Therefore, it is well settled that while exercising the revisional power, the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is very limited. The Court is to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order to prevent the abuse of process of Court otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Now, it is to examine whether in the present case the Appellate Court remained within the parameters laid by the Apex Court or exceeded its jurisdiction. A perusal of the order of Appellate Court shows that the Appellate Court has recorded the findings on merits. as if, the findings are being recorded after recording the evidence. The complainant has produced 'No Objection Certificate' (Ex.C2) regarding full and final payment made to the accused. It was argued before the Appellate Court that the said document is forged. The complainant had placed on file document Ex.C2 dated 07.11.2006 to show that the entire amount of `3,56,363 was settled. The settlement was valid till 14.11.2006. Notice of termination of the higher purchase agreement was also produced. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad came to the conclusion that document Ex.C-2 cannot be believed. He has referred to the date of the notice of termination of agreement of purchase, which SARITA RANI 2014.10.13 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1669 of 2011 (O&M) -6- bears dated 07.07.2006 for the amount outstanding till 07.11.2006.
I am of the view that it is possible that the finance company might have charged interest up to 07.11.2006 while issuing 'No Objection Certificate' (Ex.C2). However, it was not found that Ex.C2 does not bear the signature of cashier of the accused company. Learned Appellate Court also erred in holding that for empty threats no offence under Section 506 is made out. It is also recorded that there is no criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. It was also recorded that matter between the parties has already been referred to the arbitrator and that notice Ex.C4 has been sent to the complainant by the Arbitrator.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of "Sardar Trilok Singh vs. Satyadev Tripathi" AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 850.
I am of the view that learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order after recording the statement of complainant and going through the documents placed on file. The extent of revisional power is limited. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad erred in interfering the said order. The accused are alleged to have issued a certificate acknowledging that the entire payment has been received. Even than, they employed goons to take possession of the vehicle forcibly and in this process, the complainant and his driver were beaten up.
Therefore, I am of the view that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad exceeded his jurisdiction while SARITA RANI 2014.10.13 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1669 of 2011 (O&M) -7- commenting on the merits of the case and interfering in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate. As such, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.02.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad is set aside and the order dated 09.02.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad is restored. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands allowed. The private respondents are directed to put in appearance before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad for further proceedings on 12.11.2014.
(KULDIP SINGH)
October 10, 2014 JUDGE
sarita
SARITA RANI
2014.10.13 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh