Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sucha Singh Mann vs State Of Punjab on 8 December, 2022
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -1-
202+260+277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.12.2022
Sucha Singh Mann ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondents
CRM-M-10600-2020 (O&M)
Sucha Singh Mann and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CRM-M-39828-2021
Resham Singh Mann ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CRM-M-23480-2022
Resham Singh Mann ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-38837-2021 &
for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-39828-2021.
Mrs. G.K. Mann, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Ms. Simrat Kaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-10600-2020 &
for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-23480-2022.
Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate with
Ms. Shikha Singla, Advocate with
1 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 :::
CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -2-
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-39828-2021 &
for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-10600-2020 &
for the complainant in CRM-M-38837-2021.
Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-23480-2022.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
These are four petitions which are being taken up together for final disposal since the subject matter pertains to the same FIR alongwith consequential proceedings.
Before adverting to the nature of relief claimed in all the four petitions, it would be necessary to note the controversy and the allegations involved in all the four cases. An FIR No.0046 dated 05.07.2019, Police Station City Banga was lodged by one Balwinder Singh s/o Pritam Singh acting as power of attorney holder of one Resham Singh Maan s/o Ujagar Singh, who resides abroad by making allegations against two persons, namely, Mohammad Saheed @ Raju and his wife Sulekha Khatun @ Rekha by alleging that the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed @ Raju had forged the Adhaar Card and other documents i.e. Ration Card, Gas Connection and had also got a bank account opened in Punjab and Sind Bank by using the names of the parents of the aforesaid Resham Singh. The police conducted investigation wherein it was found that the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed was also called in the name of Raj Singh @ Raju and was working in the joint house since he was only 15 years of age. The mother of the aforesaid Resham Singh, namely, Chanan Kaur, who has now died got Ration Card 2 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -3- No.57812 in which Raj Singh was depicted as her son. Similarly, in the Voter Card and Gas Connection also, parentage was entered. However, now he has got it corrected. Along with the word Raj, the expression 'Singh' was also used which was not the original name of the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh. The reason which came out for making such an allegation was that the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh wanted to depict his parentage as that of the father of Resham Singh so as to usurp the land by showing that he was the brother of the aforesaid Resham Singh and this was done in connivance with another brother, namely, Mewa Singh. However, the aforesaid brother Mewa Singh was not an accused in the present FIR.
There are five brothers, namely, Sucha Singh Mann, Resham Singh, Mewa Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Palwinder Singh and all the brothers are residing abroad. Allegedly there were partition proceedings pending between them. The FIR was got lodged by one of the brothers, namely, Resham Singh through his power of attorney by Balwinder Singh and the core allegation was that a wrong information was provided to the bank and other authorities while entering into the name of Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh and consequently, a fraud and forgery had been committed by him. Although connivance of another brother, namely, Mewa Singh was alleged but he was never arraigned as accused in the present FIR.
During the investigation, the matter was referred for legal opinion and the learned District Attorney opined that at the most it was a case where offence under Section 177 IPC could be made out which is a 3 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -4- non-cognizable offence and hence the FIR cannot be registered. This opinion was based upon the provisions of Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was found during investigation that the Ration Card had already been closed in December, 2014 as per the general instructions of the State Government, rather all the record has been destroyed. So far as the gas connection in the Indian Oil Corporation is concerned the same was also closed. So far as the account which was allegedly opened by the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh in the Punjab & Sind Bank is concerned, it was opened on 01.12.2004, which has also been closed. Therefore, the S.P. Headquarter, who was asked by the SSP to report recommended the registration of FIR only under Section 420 IPC against only the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh. Thereafter, the inquiry was again reviewed and ultimately it was recommended to register an FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station City Banga against Raj Singh @ Mohammad Saheed and to conduct investigation and if during investigation, anybody was found involved then he may also be named in the case. Thereafter, when the challan was presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the same was filed by adding Section 120-B IPC against two persons, namely, Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh and Sucha Singh Mann. The aforesaid Sucha Singh Mann was added on the basis of conspiracy. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, SBS Nagar framed the charges on 03.05.2021 against the aforesaid two accused under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. As per the learned counsel for the parties no witness has been examined till date.
Sucha Singh Mann filed a revision petition before the learned 4 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -5- Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar assailing the aforesaid order dated 03.05.2021 passed by the learned JMIC by which charges were framed against him. He took up detailed grounds by stating that he was not even named in the FIR nor he was beneficiary of any amount nor anything was transferred in his name but while submitting report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. his name has been included. At the most, he had introduced the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed @ Raj Singh @ Raju while opening an account in the bank and therefore, at the most the provisions of Section 177 IPC could be attracted but apart from the aforesaid provisions, no other provision could have been invoked against the aforesaid Sucha Singh Mann, since the ingredients itself were not fulfilled. The Revisional Court on 25.08.2021 by way of an impugned order allowed the revision petition and the order by which the charges were framed against Sucha Singh Mann were set aside but the learned Revisional Court directed the learned trial Court to frame charges under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC against Sucha Singh Mann. The learned Revisional Court was of the view that the charges cannot be mechanically framed since a perusal of the record would show that no document has been forged by Sucha Singh Mann nor he has entered into any controversy with any other co-accused in forging any document. Mohammad Saheed @ Raj Singh @ Raju opened an account in the Punjab & Sind Bank on introduction/induction of the aforesaid Sucha Singh but on the basis of the said bank account, no amount of the family of the complainant was got transferred in favour of Sucha Singh Mann or any of the co-accused but he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh to cheat the bank by impersonation and therefore, provisions 5 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -6- pertaining to forgery etc. were set aside and the trial Court was directed to frame charges only under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC against Sucha Singh Mann.
Similarly Mohammad Saheed @ Raj Singh @ Raju also assailed the order dated 03.05.2021 by which the learned JMIC had framed the charges against him and Sucha Singh Mann by filing a separate revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar and vide order dated 06.04.2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the revision petition on similar grounds and set aside the impugned order of framing of charges and directed the learned trial Court to frame the charges under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC against him as well. In this way, by way of two separate revision petitions, the order of framing of charges passed by learned JMIC was set aside and direction was issued to the learned JMIC by the learned Revisional Court for framing of charges only under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC qua both the accused.
The subject matter of the present four petitions is as follows:-
(i).CRM-M-38837-2021 has been filed by Sucha Singh Maan, who is now 77 years of age seeking setting aside of the order dated 25.08.2021 by which the learned Revisional Court had directed the trial Court to frame the charges under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC.
(ii). CRM-M-10600-2020 has been filed by both Sucha Singh Maan and Raju @ Raj Singh @ Mohammad Saheed seeking to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the 6 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -7- FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
(iii). CRM-M-23480-2022 has been filed by Resham Singh, who is about 78 years of age and was the complainant in the FIR through his power of attorney seeking quashing of the order dated 06.04.2022 by which the learned Revisional Court had directed the learned trial Court to frame charges only under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC pertaining to Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh.
(iv).CRM-M-39828-2021 has been again filed by Resham Singh Mann seeking quashing of the order dated 25.08.2021 whereby the learned Revisional Court had directed the learned trial Court to frame the charges against Sucha Singh Maan only under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sucha Singh Maan in CRM-M-38837-2021 made the following submissions:-
(i).The controversy pertains to some partition dispute inter se between the brothers, who are five in number, namely, Sucha Singh Maan, Resham Singh, Mewa Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Palwinder Singh. All the brothers are residing abroad.
Complainant in the FIR is Resham Singh Maan through his power of attorney and Sucha Singh Maan is the accused alleging conspiracy against him. Both of them are about 77- 78 years of age. The core allegation in the FIR was that one Mohammad Saheed @ Raj Singh @ Raju, who was working 7 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -8- as a helper in a joint house held by the parents of the aforesaid brothers from the age of 15 years, got his account opened in the Punjab & Sind Bank by using the expression 'Singh' and giving the parentage of these brothers. Apart from the above, he also gave wrong information to the other offices with regard to parentage and obtained Adhaar Card, Gas Connection and Ration Card. Now, the account has been closed, gas connection and ration card are also closed as per the police investigation. He further submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 2004 even as per the investigation and the present FIR was lodged in the year 2019 after a delay of 15 years. He also submitted that now the learned Revisional Court has directed the framing of charges only under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC for which the maximum sentence is 3 years. Therefore, by virtue of provisions under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the lodging of the FIR and taking of cognizance by the Court was beyond the period of limitation of 3 years, as per Section 468(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(ii).He further submitted that even during the course of investigation, a legal opinion was obtained from D.A., who categorically opined that at the most an offence if at all would be under Section 177 IPC, which pertains to furnishing of false information on any subject to any public 8 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -9- servant etc. because even as per the allegations taken on the face of it show that the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed @ Raj Singh @ Raju gave a false information to either the bank officials or the other authorities with regard to the parentage or his name and so far as the petitioner Sucha Singh Maan is concerned, allegedly he had only conspired with him and therefore, on the face of it, at the most offence under Section 177 IPC could have been invoked as it was not a case of any fraud or forgery etc. The D.A. had categorically opined that for an offence under Section 177 IPC, the complainant had no locus standi for lodging a complaint before the police and the police could not have registered an FIR because it was a non-cognizable offence.
(iii).Learned counsel also submitted that since it was a non- cognizable offence the provisions of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. were attracted which provide that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, or any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence or any abetment of, or attempt to commit such an offence except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. only a criminal complaint could have been filed by an appropriate 9 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -10- authority and an FIR itself could not have been lodged at the instance of the complainant, and therefore, the FIR and all the consequential proceedings thereof are liable to be quashed.
(iv). He further submitted that the FIR was lodged to falsely implicate the petitioner and for the purpose of putting pressure with regard to the pending partition proceedings amongst brothers, and therefore, the FIR was motivated by way of mala fide on the part of the complainant. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others", 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 in support of his contention.
(v).He also submitted that now when the learned Revisional Court has directed for framing of charges only under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC, the basic ingredients of Section 419 read with Section 415 & 416 IPC were not made out even on the face of it. He further submitted that as per the definition of cheating under Section 415 IPC, it provides that 'whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission 10 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -11- causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat" and Section 416 IPC provides that 'a person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is'. He further submitted that in the present case even taking the allegations on the face of it to be true, still the aforesaid ingredients are not fulfilled at all since the allegations against the petitioner were that he conspired with the other co-accused and introduced him to the bank for opening of the account in which wrong parentage and change of name was made and therefore, it was only an allegation of giving a false information, if at all, and there was no element of dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property or to do or omit to do anything which is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property nor it was a case of impersonation since even as per the allegations, he did not pretend to be some other person and rather allegedly he had introduced the co-accused. He submitted that therefore even the learned Revisional Court has erroneously directed the trial Court to frame the charges under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC.
(vi).Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
11 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -12-
(a). "M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru", 2020(1) SCC (Criminal) 811, learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to the earlier judgment in "P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and another" 2010(2) SCC 398, observed that the Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution and is only to find out as to whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The Court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on and it would not entitle the court to make any roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
(b). In "Mrs. Sarah Mathew Vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director-Dr. K.M. Cherian and others", 2014(2) SCC 62, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. observed that Sub-section (1) of Section 468 makes it clear that a fetter is put on the Court's power to take cognizance of an offence of the category mentioned in sub-section (2) after the expiry of period of limitation. Sub- section (2) lays down the period of limitation for certain offences. Section 469 states when the period of limitation commences. The period of limitation commences either from the date of offence or from the date when the offence 12 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -13- is detected. Section 470 provides for exclusion of time in certain cases. Section 471 provides for exclusion of date on which court is closed and Section 472 provides for continuing offence. Section 473 is an overriding provision which enables courts to condone delay where such delay has been properly explained or where the interest of justice demands extension of period of limitation and analysis of these provisions indicates that Chapter XXXVI is a Code by itself so far as limitation is concerned. All the provisions of this Chapter will have to be read cumulatively. The learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the maximum sentence under Section 419 IPC is 3 years and the period prescribed under Section 468 IPC in such cases is 3 years for filing complaint or taking cognizance. He also submitted that the year of offence, if any, pertains to year 2004 and there is nothing in the FIR or a complaint or any other order during judicial proceedings to even remotely suggest that an exception can be carved out for extending the period of limitation on the ground of knowledge etc. or even regarding the condonation of delay and therefore, the provisions of Section 468 are directly applicable in the present case and consequently, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(c). In "Sirajul and others Vs. The State of U.P. and 13 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -14- another", 2015(9) SCC 201, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case pertaining to offence under Section 307 IPC wherein the complaint was lodged after a delay of 16 years and for such an offence no period of limitation is prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while it is true that cases covered by statutory bar of limitation may be liable to be quashed without any further enquiry, but cases not covered by statutory bar can also be quashed on the ground of delay in filing of a criminal complaint in appropriate cases. In such cases, the question for consideration is whether there is violation of right of speedy trial which has been held to be part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India having regard to the nature of offence, extent of delay, person responsible for delay and other attending circumstances. It was further held that mere delay in completion of proceedings may not by itself be a ground to quash proceedings where offences are serious in nature, but the Court having regard to the conduct of the parties, nature of offence and the extent of delay in the facts and circumstances of a given case, quash the proceedings by exercising of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Sirajul and others and quashed the proceedings in a 14 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -15- criminal complaint pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate.
(d).In "P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka", 2002(4) SCC 578, a Seven Judge Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court observed that the provisions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay's case, adequately take care of right to speedy trial and the judgment in A.R. Antulay's case was re-affirmed and it was observed that the guidelines observed in A.R. Antulay's case are not exhaustive but only illustrative and are not to be applied like a strait-jacket formula. It was further observed that it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw and prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all the criminal proceedings and it was further observed that in appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions.
(e). In "Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar", 2009 (3) SCC 355, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of 15 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -16- the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in Court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases.
(f). In "C. Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu", 2010(9) SCC 567, it was held that Section 195
(a)(i) Cr.P.C. bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC. The Court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity or disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions.
Mrs. G.K. Mann, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Simrat Kaur, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner in CRM-M- 10600-2020, which has been filed by both Sucha Singh Maan and Raju @ Raj Singh @ Mohammad Saheed whereby the FIR itself along with its consequential proceedings have been challenged. She argued that in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the FIR along with all the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed since no offence was 16 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -17- made out on the face of it even if the allegations are taken to be true on the face of it. She also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and submitted that the petitioner Sucha Singh Maan is 77 years of age and is a citizen of Canada since 1975, recipient of Honor Award in Canada for his contribution in Sustainability and Environmental engineering. He has retired as Professional Engineer and presently teaching at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. He has also worked to inspire Indian Government and Industry to further the Telecommunication Technologies to benefit all Indian citizens, written articles under the heading 'Strategic Telecommunication Opportunities in India for Canadian Companies'. She submitted that he has been falsely prosecuted in the present case as no offence was made out against him. She further submitted that he was neither named in the FIR nor anything had come up in the police investigation nor anything has been recovered from him nor there was any allegation with regard to cheating and it was only at the time of presentation of challan that his name was included by adding Section 120-B IPC. In addition to the arguments which were raised by Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, she submitted that in fact the entire FIR with all the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed qua both Sucha Singh Maan and Raju @ Raj Singh @ Mohammad Saheed. She referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "G. Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P.", 2000(2) SCC 636, wherein earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pepsi Foods Ltd. & another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others", 1998(5) SCC 749, was referred wherein it was held that though the Magistrate trying a 17 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -18- case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceedings quashed against them when no offence has been made out against him and still why he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial. However, the powers under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure has to be exercised with great care and caution and should not be exercised in a superficial manner. She further referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mr. Robert John D'Souza and others Vs. Mr. Stephen Vs. Gomes and another", 2015(9) SCC 96, wherein the complaint under Sections 420 & 415 IPC was filed after a period of 12 years and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the facts and circumstances, observed that it was nothing but abuse of the process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the appellants in a criminal case after a period of 12 years of execution of registered sale deeds in question and the summoning order issued by the Magistrate was quashed. She further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Parminder Kaur Vs. State of U.P. & another", 2010(1) SCC 322, wherein FIR was lodged under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, but while discussing the ingredients and the scope of the aforesaid provisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the ingredients were not even fulfilled because the complainant was not able to show that how the accused were benefited in any manner by changing the dates. Therefore, while referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case (supra), it 18 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -19- was observed that the complaint was a malicious and vengeanceful prosecution which had no base and the proseuction was quashed. She further referred to a judgment of this Court in "Lakhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab", 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 104, to contend that even if the charges have been framed, there is no absolute bar to the entertainment of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only on the ground that charges have been framed.
The learned Senior Counsel referred to another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Bishan Das Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2014(15) SCC 242. The allegations in the FIR of that case were that the accused was a Sarpanch of the village and he knowingly issued a certificate to co-accused to enable him to take wrongful gain. He was proceeded under Section 177 & 420 IPC and was convicted. While referring to the provisions of Section 420 IPC, it was observed that there was no evidence to show that there was any fraudulent, dishonest intention on the part of the appellant in issuing certificate in favour of one Lal Chand. Issuance of false certificate cannot be said to be with dishonest intention to make wrongful gain for himself. Since the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not proved, the conviction of the appellant under Section 420 IPC, could not be sustained and the same was set aside. However, conviction under Section 177 IPC was confirmed but the sentence was modified to the period undergone.
On the other hand, Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant Resham Singh, who is respondent No.2 in CRM-M-10600-2020 and petitioner in CRM-M-39828-2021 and 19 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -20- Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant Resham Singh, who is the petitioner in CRM-M-23480-2022 also advanced their respective submissions. They submitted that a Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the framing of charges under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 IPC and of its own adding Section 419 & 120-B IPC and directing the trial Court to frame the charges only under Section 419 & 120-B IPC. They submitted that at the time of framing of charges only prima facie evidence is to be seen and there can be no mini trial and referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Akhil Sharda and others", 2022(3) RCR (Criminal) 841, in this regard. They further submitted that the FIR and its consequential proceedings cannot be quashed based upon the period of limitation since there cannot be any delay as per Section 469(i)(b), since it would commence not from the date of occurrence but when the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence, the first date on which the offence comes to the knowledge of such person. They submitted that disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case, which can be ascertained only by way of adducing evidence at the time of trial. They further submitted that the orders of the learned Revisional Court pertaining to both the accused were not proper because the charges can be altered at any stage at the time of trial. They also submitted that specific and direct allegations have been attributed to the accused persons and therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing of the FIR and the order passed by the learned JMIC was in accordance with law which must be sustained. They have also pointed out the order passed by this Court on 16.03.2021 in CRM-M-
20 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -21- 10600-2020, wherein this Court had dismissed the petition qua petitioner No.1 since he had violated the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the matter was kept pending for petitioner No.2 only.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, learned AAG, Punjab submitted that direct allegations have been levelled against the accused persons, and therefore, the present petitioners are liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. All the learned counsels for the parties were heard at length. The reliefs claimed in all these four petitions are although multidimensional but the core issue involved in the present cases is that one. Sucha Singh has filed two petitions. First, challenging the orders passed by the Revisional Court whereby directions were issued to the trial Court to frame the charges only under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC by submitting that rather no offence was made out at all against him. In the other petition filed by him along with another co-accused, namely, Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh, he has claimed the quashing of the FIR itself with all the consequential proceedings. Complainant-Resham Singh has also filed two petitions by which two different orders passed by the learned Revisional Court qua Sucha Singh Maan and Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh have been assailed by asserting that the Revisional Court could not have deleted the provisions of Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and instead directed the trial Court to have framed the charges only under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC.
The grievance of both the parties can be considered on the basis of the entire factual matrix of the case. The FIR was registered in the year 21 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -22- 2019. The allegations in the FIR were primarily pertaining to Mohammad Saheed @ Raj Singh @ Raju that he got issued Gas Connection, Ration Card, Aadhar Card and got his account opened in Punjab & Sind Bank whereby he had shown his parentage to be that of parents of Sucha Singh Maan and his brothers. Sucha Singh was not named in the FIR nor any role was attributable to him. However, conspiracy pertaining to another brother, namely, Mewa Singh was stated but he was never accused in the FIR or the other proceedings. However, challan against Sucha Singh was presented by adding Section 120-B IPC that he had conspired with the other co-accused and he introduced him for opening of the bank account wherein the parentage of the co-accused, namely, Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh was that of the parents of Sucha Singh and the expression "Singh" was also added along with Raju and in this way, wrong information was supplied to the Bank and other authorities. The allegations of fraud and forgery were also made in the FIR. During the investigation, a legal opinion was obtained from the District Attorney, who had opined that at the most, it can be a case of Section 177 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore, the FIR cannot be registered because of the mandatory provisions of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. where only criminal complaint can lie. The occurrence had allegedly taken place during the year 2004 and the present FIR was lodged after a period of 15 years.
A perusal and appreciation of the allegations in the present case prima facie suggests on the face of it that Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh got issued Ration Card, Gas Connection etc. and also got opened bank account by giving wrong information to the authorities and the bank 22 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -23- officials. The reasons given by the learned counsels for Sucha Singh and Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh was that he was staying in the joint house of the parents of Sucha Singh since he was of the age of 15 years and was serving them and it was for the purpose of convenience and having a place of residence that the parentage was given along with the expression "Singh" and at the most it can be a case of giving false information for which offence under Section 177 IPC may be made out if at all. However, learned counsels for the complainant have contended that the purpose of giving wrong information was that there were partition proceedings pending between the brothers and in order to claim a right as a 6th son that such a wrong information was given so that in future he may claim his right and usurp the property.
In the light of the aforesaid allegations and the facts and circumstances, it has to be seen as to whether the ingredients of Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 or 419 & 120-B IPC were fulfilled or not. The scope of the aforesaid provisions has also been well explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several of judgments and some of them have also been relied upon by the learned counsels for the parties. Section 419 IPC deals with punishment for cheating by personation which has been defined so under Section 416 IPC, in which, it has been provided that a person is said to cheat by personation if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. However, even as per the allegations, it was not a case of substituting or representing one person for another. Mohammad Saheed @ 23 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -24- Raju @ Raj Singh had given a wrong description of his parentage and added the word "Singh" while opening the bank account but it was not a case of substitution of a person and so far as the petitioner-Sucha Singh is concerned, he only introduced him, and therefore, qua him as well, the ingredients of Section 416 were not fulfilled. Section 420 IPC provides for punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing for delivery of property, when any person dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. However, there is no allegation pertaining to inducing any person for delivery of any property and rather no such allegation has been made at all. No money or valuable security has been transferred in the name of either of the accused even as per the allegations. The mere fact that the purpose of giving false information with regard to parentage etc. was for the purpose of getting the share in future in some other proceedings, would not mean that the basic ingredients sine qua non of Section 420 IPC were fulfilled by such an act on the part of the accused persons.
Section 465 IPC provides for punishment for forgery, which has been defined under Section 463 IPC, which provides that whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
24 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -25- However, in the present case, there is no allegation pertaining to both the accused for making any false document or any electronic record etc., and therefore, the basic ingredients sine qua non of Section 465 were not fulfilled. Similarly, Section 467 IPC provides for forgery of valuable security, Will etc. and again as per the allegations, the ingredients are not fulfilled. Section 468 IPC provides that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, will also not be attracted in the present case since Sections 465 & 467 IPC are not attracted. Section 471 IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record. This provision will also not be applicable in the present case since there is no allegation with regard to forgery of any document.
When both the accused filed their respective Revisions before the Revisional Court, the Revisional Court rightly observed that the provisions of Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 IPC are not attracted because the basic ingredients of aforesaid sections are not fulfilled. However, directions were issued for framing of charge under Sections 419 & 120-B IPC. However, as per allegations in the present case, even the ingredients of Section 419 IPC read with Sections 415 & 416 IPC are not fulfilled on the face of it, and therefore, even if the allegations are taken to be true even then, on the face of it, no offence is made out. Therefore, the observations made by the learned Revisional Court in both the cases were 25 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -26- not only erroneous but also perverse and therefore, the entire charges framed by the learned JMIC are liable to be set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has laid down parameters. One of the parameters is that if on the face of it no offence is made out, then in order to secure the end of justice and to prevent an abuse of the process of law, the FIR can be quashed at the threshold. Even clear mala fide intention on the face of it can also become a ground for quashing of the FIR.
So far as the arguments raised by Mrs. G.K. Mann and Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsels for the petitioners that even going by the allegations, some wrong information was given to the authorities, at the most Section 177 IPC could have been invoked and rather the District Attorney had also opined on the same lines and had recommended that FIR cannot be lodged since offence under Section 177 IPC is a non-cognizable offence, the same carries weight. The facts of the present case clearly suggest that at the most, it was a case of giving false information to the bank and other authorities where the parentage of Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh was wrongly mentioned and the expression "Singh" was used with his name and so far as the petitioner Sucha Singh Maan is concerned, he had only introduced the aforesaid Raju. Therefore, the lodging of the FIR and its consequential proceedings cannot sustain for want of jurisdiction because Section 177 IPC is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore, criminal complaint could only have been filed by virtue of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C by a competent person in accordance with law.
So far as the issue of limitation raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners is concerned, the alleged occurrence is of the year 2004 26 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -27- and the FIR was lodged in the year 2019. So far as the offence under Section 419 IPC is concerned, the maximum sentence is 3 years, and therefore, the limitation period as per Section 468 Cr.P.C. is 3 years. However, the maximum sentence under Section 420 IPC is 7 years and much higher sentence is provided under Section 467 IPC. Learned counsels for the petitioners had referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Sarah Mathew's case (supra) wherein it was observed that even if the complaint is not barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., still due to inordinate delay of a large number of years which affects the right of speedy trial, the proceedings can still be quashed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the alternate, even on the ground of inordinate delay of 15 years, the FIR and its consequential proceedings as well as the order dated 03.05.2021 by which the charges were framed and the orders of the Revisional Court dated 25.08.2021 and 06.04.2022 are liable to be quashed.
The argument raised by the learned counsels for the complainant that the Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to modify the charges, is not sustainable because of the fact that not only Section 419 IPC but even the remaining sections under which the charges were framed, were also not sustainable in view of the aforesaid reasons. The other argument raised by the learned counsels for the complainant that at the time of framing of charges only prima facie evidence is to be seen and there can be no mini trial, is also not applicable to the present case in view of the fact that it is also a settled law that if on the face of it, the offence is not made out on the bare allegations even if taken to be true, then the accused should not be put to further agony of criminal trial and the High Court can always 27 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -28- invoke the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR/complaint and the consequential proceedings, although the power should be exercised very cautiously and diligently. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that disputed questions of fact were involved, would also be not sustainable in view of the fact that the allegations on the face of it do not fulfill the ingredients sine qua non of Sections 420, 463, 467, 468, 471, 419 & 120-B IPC.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the orders passed by the learned Revisional Court dated 25.08.2021 and 06.04.2022 are liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed. The order dated 03.05.2021, by which charges were framed by the learned JMIC against both the accused, is also hereby set aside and quashed and the FIR No.0046 dated 05.07.2019, registered at Police Station City Banga, District SBS Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC with all consequential proceedings is hereby quashed.
So far as the order dated 16.03.2021, which was passed in CRM-M-10600 of 2020, the petition qua the petitioner-Sucha Singh Maan was dismissed is concerned, the same would not affect the merits of another petition filed by Sucha Singh Maan whereby the orders passed by the Revisional Court were challenged. Since the FIR itself with all consequential proceedings including framing of charges has been quashed, the effect of order dated 16.03.2021 would be rendered otiose.
Consequently, CRM-M-38837-2021 & CRM-M-10600-2020 (qua petitioner No.2) are allowed and CRM-M-23480-2022 & CRM-M-
28 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 ::: CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -29- 39828-2021 are hereby dismissed.
08.12.2022 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
2. Whether reportable: Yes
29 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2022 23:51:13 :::