Punjab-Haryana High Court
Damanpreet Singh Bhikhi vs State Of Punjab on 15 September, 2014
Author: Amol Rattan Singh
Bench: Amol Rattan Singh
CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision : 15.09.2014
Damanpreet Singh Bhikhi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present: Mr.S.S.Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Addl. AG, Punjab.
***
Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral)
This revision petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 12.04.2014, by which charges in respect of offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 255, 256, 258, 260, 201 and 120-B of the IPC have been framed against the petitioner, alongwith his co- accused.
2. The petitioner, an Advocate, practicing at the District Courts at Ludhiana, has been charged with the said offences pursuant to FIR No. 110 having been registered on 18.05.2009 at Police Division No. 5, Civil Line, Ludhiana, initially in respect of some of the above mentioned offences, i.e. other than the offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 258, 260, 201 and 120-B of IPC, at the instance of the Sub Registrar, Central Ludhiana, on AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 2 a complaint made to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, with regard to sale deeds being executed on forged stamp papers. The petitioner was stated to have presented the said sale deeds on those forged stamp papers, as an Advocate for the parties concerned, to the Office of the Sub Registrar, for registration thereof.
3. Upon investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of the competent Magistrate on 25.09.2009 in which it was stated that investigation with regard to the role of the petitioner, Damanpreet Singh Bhikhi, was still not complete and as such the report was not filed against him at that stage, but against four other co-accused, in respect of all the offences first mentioned hereinabove, including those under Sections 255, 256, 258, 260 and 201 of the IPC, for which they (and the petitioner), were eventually charged. The petitioner was thereafter named as an accused in respect of all the aforesaid offences, by way of a subsequent report filed under Section 173 (8) of the Code, though Section 120-B IPC was not mentioned, either in the initial report under Section 173(2), nor in the supplementary report filed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
4. Still thereafter, upon an application moved by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, alleging, false implication and demanding a free and fair enquiry, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was entrusted with the enquiry/investigation, who submitted a report in favour of the petitioner and consequently yet another report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. was filed, on the ground that stamp papers recovered from the petitioners' house, during search, were found to be genuine and that though the stamp papers presented to the Sub-Registrar, on which the deeds in question were written, were found to be fake, there was no proof that the AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 3 petitioner had presented such "Vasikas" (deeds) before the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana and that, as per the Registration Act, only the seller/purchaser of the land, or his attorney, can present a "Vasika" before the Sub-Registrar for registration thereof. As such, the report stating that the petitioner has been found innocent, was presented on 09.01.2014, to the Court.
5. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Crl. Misc. No. M-24653 of 2012 before this Court, invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR, which was disposed of on March 24, 2014 by a Co-ordinate Bench, with the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., supplementary report in this regard has also been filed by the police declaring the petitioner innocent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would be satisfied if the trial court is directed to consider both the reports together while deciding the matter regarding framing of charges.
In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to consider both the reports while deciding the question regarding framing of charges within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn as having been rendered infructuous."
6. However, eventually the impugned order came to be passed, framing charges against the petitioner and his co-accused, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 12.04.2014.
7. Against the said order, the petitioner initially filed Crl. Misc. No. M-26308 of 2014 in this Court, again invoking jurisdiction under AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 4 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which came up for hearing before this Bench itself on 07.08.2014. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in that petition, argued the matter, but on finding that this Court (this Bench) was not inclined to interfere in any manner in respect of the impugned order, that petition was withdrawn with the following order:-
" After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitoner states that he wishes to withdraw this petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn."
8. Now, the present revision petition has been filed, impugning the same order, framing charges against the petitioner, and on the first date, i.e. 09.09.2014, this Court had adjourned the matter to 11.09.2014, directing that the case file of the previous case, i.e. CRM-M No. 26308 of 2014, be also put up along with the present case.
On 11.09.2014, the matter was adjourned to 15.09.2014 directing the petitioner to address arguments, in addition to the challenge to the impugned order, on the issue of maintainability of the revision petition, in view of the fact that the petition filed by him earlier, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., had earlier been dismissed as withdrawn, after it had been argued for a while and was not withdrawn on a technicality of an alternate namely (Revision Petition) being available, but because, actually, this Court was not inclined to intervene against the impugned order.
9. Eventually, when arguments were addressed, Mr. Sumer Singh Brar, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following two judgments in support of his case:-
AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 5
(i)Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni and another, 1997 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 724.
(ii)Dharmatma Singh Vs. Harminder Singh and others, 2011 (6) SCC 102.
10. Other than the above, on the merits of the case, he submitted that, firstly, no offence was made out against the petitioner, as he was only an Advocate who had drafted and caused to be printed, the sale deeds of his clients, on stamp papers that were given to him by them.
He next contended that no fake stamp papers were recovered from the petitioners' house, as admitted by the Investigating Agency itself, upon verification of the said stamp papers.
He next contented that no machinery, or any tool that could be connected to making counterfeit stamp papers, was recovered from the petitioner.
His next contention was that the petitioner was only being implicated on the statement of another Advocate and one "Dhaba" owner, who stated that he had heard the petitioner and others, while sitting in his "Dhaba", talking about forged stamp papers.
Learned counsel then contended that, as a matter of fact, the report filed against the petitioner by the investigating agency, implicating him also as an accused, was actually due to the fact that the investigating agency found itself under pressure on account of a Public Interest Litigation having been filed in this Court (CWP No.19826 of 2009), in which the prayer was for entrustment of investigation in the FIR to the CBI and during the course of hearing of the said petition, an order came to be passed by the Division Bench on 21.12.2009, adjourning the matter to 30.04.2010, to await further progress in the criminal proceedings. As such, learned counsel AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 6 contended that the supplementary report under Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. came to be filed, on 07.05.2010, implicating the petitioner.
Finally, Mr. Brar submitted that the learned trial Court has also not abided by the directions given by this Court in CRM-M No. 24653 of 2012, on 24.03.2014, directing it to consider the initial report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., as also the supplementary report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., while deciding the question of framing of charges.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the petition, firstly on account of its non- maintainability, itself. The petitioner having first chosen to approach this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by filing CRM-M No. 26308 of 2014, in which also the relief sought was quashing of the order framing charges, and having withdrawn that petition upon his counsel having argued it for some time, on realising that this Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, in my opinion, a second petition in a different form, i.e. a revision petition, would not be maintainable on the same cause of action.
As is obvious from the order passed on 07.08.2014, in CRM-M No. 26308 of 2014, reproduced herein above, it was only after arguing for some time that counsel for the petitioner had sought to withdraw the petition, which was consequently allowed. In fact, parts of the impugned order had been pointed to the learned counsel appearing in that case, to convey that this Court was not at all inclined to interfere in the order framing charges and it was, as a matter of fact, when this Court had started dictating the order of dismissal of that petition, on merits, that the learned counsel then appearing, Shri H.S.Dhindsa, had sought to withdraw the AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 7 petition, stating that anything said by this Court may eventually prove to be prejudicial to the mind of the trial Court, even if this Court was to explicitly state that no observation made in that order would affect the merits of the case before the trial Court.
It was in these circumstances that learned counsel for the petitioner had sought withdrawal of that petition, which was allowed. Hence, in my opinion, the present petition is not maintainable at all.
12. Of course, the matter would have, naturally, been different had the first petition simply been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a revision petition, on a technical ground of the remedy of a revision being available, as against a remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, that is not so in the present case, at all.
13. Nevertheless, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has made detailed submissions on merits, as noted above, this Court is required to deal with them. However, even while trying to ensure that any opinion expressed by this Court does not prejudice the mind of the trial Court, a part of the impugned order of that Court, as also a part of the supplementary report dated 07.05.2010 (under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.), by which the petitioner was named as an accused, and further, also the next supplementary report dated 09.01.2014, in which he was stated to be innocent, need to be referred to.
14. First, coming to the report dated 07.05.2010. It is stated therein that the "main accused", i.e. the Stamp Vendor, Ravinderpal Singh, and one Bhupinder Kaur @ Jyoti, stated during investigation that all the forged stamp papers were presented by the petitioner before the Tehsildar (Sub- Registrar). The said report also states that Advocate J.S.Deol, who is stated AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 8 to have drafted the "Vasikas" (deeds), had earlier, during investigation, stated that the forged deeds were got entered into his register by the petitioner. That report also refers to the alleged statement of one Sukhdev Singh, a "Dhaba" owner, to the effect that he had, allegedly, heard the petitioner and other co-accused talking about forged stamp papers, while sitting in his "Dhaba".
On the other hand, in the next report dated 09.01.2014, again filed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is stated to have been found innocent by the Investigating Agency, primarily on the ground that there was no proof that the petitioner had presented the deeds on forged stamp papers before the Sub Registrar and that, in any case, under the Registration Act, it is only the seller/purchaser of the land, or his attorney, who can present the deeds before the Registrar for registration (as already noticed earlier). Further ground on which the petitioner was found innocent by the investigating agency, was that, during the search of his house, none of the stamp papers recovered had been found to be forged.
15. The trial Court, in the impugned order, has, recorded as under:-
"The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Damanpreet Singh that report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. was furnished against him does not hold any water. Perusal of the file reveals that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was furnished in the court against the accused Ravinder Pal Singh, Damanpreeet Singh and others on 04.06.2010. Thereafter, the prosecution furnished the report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., against the accused Damanpreet Singh only, but Ld. Counsel for accused Damanpreet Singh was fair enough to consider that he presented four sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar only for the purpose of AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 9 registration and was (not) aware of the fact that the same were prepared on forged and fabricated and counterfeit stamp papers. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused cannot be accepted at this stage of the accused. Accused Damanpreet Singh did produce the said counterfeit, forged and fabricated sale deeds before the Sub Registrar for the purpose of registration being counsel of vendors of vendeeds, therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to proclaim that he was not aware of the fact that said wasikas/sale deeds were prepared on forged and fabricated stamp papers. The report furnished by the prosecution under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. is not binding on this court, moreso when the prosecution had already presented the challan against the accused Damanpreet Singh under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is reiterated for the cost of repetition that the charge can be framed against the accused merely on the basis of strong suspicion"
[It needs to be noted that though the impugned order, as annexed in the present petition, does not contain the word 'not' between the words 'was" and 'aware'. However, the photostat copy of the same order, which had been annexed along with the petition earlier filed, i.e. CRM-M No. 26308 of 2014, shows that the said word ('not'), does so occur at that place. In any case, this is not denied by the counsel].
16. Thus, the learned trial Court formed its opinion with regard to the framing of charge, obviously in the light of the above circumstances and the fact that, despite the supplementary report dated 09.01.2014 stating that the petitioner had not presented any sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar, this was a fact which obviously was not correct, in view of the submission made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court, to the effect that the petitioner had actually presented the sale deeds before the AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 10 Sub-Registrar, though only for the purposes of registration and, as per the said submission of the counsel (before the trial Court and this Court), the petitioner was not aware of the fact that they were printed on forged and fabricated stamp papers. Thus, one of the reasons given by the Investigating Agency, in the second supplementary report, in favour of the petitioner, was factually found incorrect by the trial Court, at the stage of framing charges, though, with a rider noted on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner knew nothing about the stamp papers being forged.
17. At the time of framing of a charge, the trial Court is only to form an opinion and grave suspicion that the charges sought to be framed are, atleast prima facie, made out against the accused. The truth or falsehood of such charges or any of them, against an accused, would obviously be determined after appreciation of evidence presented on both sides, in respect of the charges.
In the present case, that is actually what the trial Court has done and, as such, in my opinion, the impugned order, even on merits, does not require to be interfered with at this stage, looking at the contents of both the reports filed under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C., one against the other.
18. As regards the judgments cited by Mr. Brar, he specifically laid stress on the issue of jurisdiction under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C., as observed with regard thereto by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. However, he could not point out anything therefrom, that would affect the decision in the present case, either on the issue of maintainability of the present petition after the first one filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. had been dismissed in the circumstances given hereinabove, or on the merits of the matter itself.
AMIT RANA2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 11
In the judgment in Dharmatma Singhs' case (supra), he specifically pointed to paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, to submit that even a supplementary report must be taken cognizance of by a Magistrate, before being forwarded to the trial Court. Of course, in view of what is contained in Sections 190 and 193 of the Cr.P.C., as also in Section 173 itself, there is no manner of doubt with regard to the above; however, what needs to be noted in the present case is, firstly, nothing has been shown to the Court to presume that the second supplementary report dated 09.01.2014, by which the petitioner was shown to be innocent by the Investigating Agency, was not first presented to a court of the competent Magistrate; secondly, the case had already been committed to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 27.07.2013, by the learned JMIC, Ludhiana, recording an opinion that offences sought to be made out were, prima-facie, made out against the accused persons, including the petitioner. Thus, the supplementary report dated 09.01.2014, having been submitted thereafter, could obviously only have been considered on merits by the trial Court, i.e. the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, and no firm opinion could have been recorded by the Magistrate thereupon, in view of the fact that on the basis of the first two reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C., he had already committed the case to the court of Sessions and thereafter, he would have no jurisdiction to record a second opinion with regard to the innocence of the petitioner, on the basis of a supplementary report, the matter already being subject matter of trial before a superior Court than that of the Magistrate.
Hence, the leverage sought to be derived by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even on a technicality, in my opinion, cannot hold in his AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 12 favour, because the matter in any case would have to be adjudicated upon by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge only.
19. Further, with regard to the issue of framing of charges on consideration of all the reports under section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by filing CRM-M No. 24653 of 2012, which was disposed of on 24.03.2014, with a direction to the trial Court to consider both the reports while deciding the question regarding framing of charges against the petitioner, i.e. the report making him out to be an accused and the subsequent one showing him to be innocent, as stated earlier.
Infact, one of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said direction has not been carried out by the trial Court. Obviously, relying upon the said direction of this Court in the aforesaid matter (upon counsel's submission in that case), that he would be satisfied with such a direction, the petitioner cannot now try to delay the proceedings before the trial Court, by seeking that the order framing charges be set aside on the ground that the supplementary report which was and is sought to be taken shelter of, was not presented through the proper forum.
20. As regards the contention that the trial Court has not complied with the directions given by this Court (on 24.03.2014), I find the argument to be devoid of any merit, in view of the fact that the trial Court has very obviously considered both the reports, before coming to a conclusion to frame charges, as can be seen from a perusal of what is stated in paragraph 8 of the impugned order.
AMIT RANA 2014.11.11 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 2843 of 2014 (O&M) 13
21. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the present petition, which is dismissed on the ground of non- maintainability, as well as on merits.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove will not be taken by the trial Court to be a comment on the merits of the case, for or against the petitioner, in any manner whatsoever. The truth or faslity of the charges framed would, naturally, be a matter of evidence led before the trial Court, to be appreciated by that Court, entirely on the merits thereof.
15.09.2014 (Amol Rattan Singh)
amit rana Judge
AMIT RANA
2014.11.11 15:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh