Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Kalra And Another vs Harjit Singh on 11 February, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:10.2.2014
Prem Kalra and another
...Petitioners
v.
Harjit Singh
...Respondent
....
(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-27550 of 2010 (O&M)
.....
Dr. Baldev Raj
...Petitioner
v.
Harjit Singh
...Respondents
....
(3) Criminal Misc. No.M-38526 of 2012
.....
Tajwant Singh and another
...Petitioners
v.
Harjit Singh
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal
Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.M-183
of 2010.
Parmar Harpal Singh
2014.03.11 10:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc.
[2]
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amandeep
Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioners in Cr. Misc.
Nos.M-27550 of 2010 and 38526 of 2012.
Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S.
Mehandiratta, Advocate for the respondent in all the
petitions.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned three criminal miscellaneous petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-183 of 2010 filed by Smt. Prem Kalra and Smt. Mona Kalra; Criminal Misc. No.M-27550 of 2010 filed by Dr. Baldev Raj and Criminal Misc. No.M-38526 of 2012 filed by Tajwant Singh and Navneet Kaur under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint No.350 of 2009 dated 17.7.2009 instituted by Harjit Singh-respondent for the offences under Sections 193, 195, 196, 197, 199, 211, 389, 463, 469, 471, 500, 34 and 120-B IPC and for quashing of the order dated 21.10.2009 summoning the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 195, 465 and 120-B IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. These petitions are being disposed of by one order as these arise out of the same complaint.
The facts are being taken from Criminal Misc. No.M-38526 of 2012. It is mainly stated in the petition that the complaint instituted by Harjit Singh-complainant (respondent herein) is a counter-blast and retaliation to FIR No.237 dated 1.4.2009 registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC against him and members of his family at Police Station City Karnal at the instance of Tajwant Singh, one Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [3] of the present petitioners. The complaint in this case has been instituted to browbeat the witnesses and prevent them from giving a fair testimony. It is a case of malicious prosecution to force the petitioners from pursuing the aforesaid case pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and get justice for the pain suffered by them. It is also stated that certain persons implicated in the present case are cited as witnesses in the challan, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted before the Magistrate in case FIR No.237 dated 1.4.2009. They being arrayed as accused here clearly shows the intention of the respondent-complainant to stall the said proceedings in relation to the FIR case. The FIR for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC was registered against Jasdeep Singh son of Harjit Singh, Harjit Singh, Sunit Kaur wife of Harjit Singh, Harpreet Singh Chhabra at the instance of Tajwant Singh (petitioner No.1 in Cr. Misc. No.M-38526 of 2012), wherein it is stated that the marriage of Navneet Kaur (petitioner No.2 in Cr. Misc. No.M-38526 of 2012) daughter of Tajwant Singh was solemnized on 15.9.2007. The offence under Section 307 IPC was added during the course of investigation but later on dropped. It is stated therein that marriage ceremonies and dinner were organized at Jewel Hotel at Karnal and large number of dowry articles were given and about `3 Crores was spent on the marriage. It is also stated in the petition that Harjit Singh filed an application dated 18.5.2009 in the FIR case in the proceedings of anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble High Court and stated that he is ready and willing to return the gift items (dowry articles) received by them. As per the list appended Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [4] with the FIR, the value of the jewelry articles gifted by the complainant in the FIR case is `1,32,67,000/-. Hence, as the dowry articles were admitted regarding jewellery, therefore, there is no question of false bills having been prepared by Shree Ganesh Jewellers Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Company') or its employee or the petitioners. This allegation is levelled only to harass the petitioners for pursuing their legal rights. In the FIR, petitioner No.1 has stated that his daughter Navneet Kaur was being given cocktail of medicines which was causing her to slow-down mentally. Petitioner No.1 had relied on the prescription slip dated 19.12.2008 in which the doctor (also an accused in the present complaint) advised petitioner No.2 not to use Larpose. The doctor also issued certificate dated 2.4.2009 wherein he opined that Larpose causes addiction and if taken in excess may be dangerous to life. Statement of the doctor has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 2.4.2009 and opinion was obtained from an independent Board of Doctors of General Hospital, Karnal, which opined that Larpose in a very high dose could be dangerous to life. The offence under Section 307 IPC was added during the investigation, but later on dropped by the Police. The challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal. It is stated that in the prescription slip erroneously the date was put as 19.12.2008, whereas in fact, the actual date of the doctor having checked Navneet Kaur (petitioner No.2) was 19.11.2008 and the date 19.12.2008 had been written on account of mistake. In the said prescription slip the doctor merely recommended that Larpose be stopped Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [5] and she should exercise and had recommended tablets Verlin 8 mg. 1 S.O.S. and Tablet Magadol 180 mg. 1 B.D. X 4 days. Apart from the aforesaid recommendations, no opinion has been expressed in the aforesaid prescription slip.
The respondent instituted a complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for conducting an inquiry into offences committed by the complainant in the FIR case and others including the petitioners which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the same at appropriate stage. It is also stated in the petition that in order to put pressure upon the witnesses and the complainant, the respondent filed the present complaint by making two sets of allegations, one against the petitioners and the other against Smt. Prem Kalra and Smt. Mona Kalra and the doctor. The summoning order was passed on the basis of preliminary evidence.
Notice was given to the respondent and reply has been filed to contest these petitions and denied the averments made in the petitions.
At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that complaint has been filed by the respondent to put pressure on the witnesses in State case. The computer copies of the Bills have been given by the employee of petitioner Prem Kalra and Mona Kalra, who are the Director and Managing Director of the Company and are the housewives, as stated by them. There are no allegations that the present petitioners have forged or fabricated those bills. They are the owners of the Company i.e. Director and Managing Director of the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [6] Company. No specific role has been attributed to Smt. Prem Kalra and Smt. Mona Kalra. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further argued that this complaint is counter-blast to the FIR case and the allegation against petitioner Tajwant Singh is that he handed over these documents to the Police. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the doctor, who had given the prescription slip and prescribed that this medicine may not be given, cannot be made accused. If the date is given inadvertently as 19.12.2008 instead of 19.11.2008, he cannot be made an accused. Otherwise, the doctor has also no where stated that it amounts to slow poison. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also contended that the petitioners cannot be summoned under Sections 193, 195 IPC as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(i) Cr.P.C. Leaned senior counsel for the petitioners also contended that there is no evidence regarding forging of any document and there is no finding of the Court at this stage that these documents are forged or these documents have been falsely prepared to give during the investigation or criminal conspiracy.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent argued that on the basis of opinion of the doctor, the offence under Section 307 IPC was added, which was later on dropped. Learned senior counsel for the respondent further argued that bills which were issued by Shree Ganesh Jewellers Limited, are also forged one as these bills are showing the amount of another bills above the bills on the papers, which he states, shows forgery. Learned senior counsel for the respondent Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [7] further argued that independent complaint is maintainable and the same is not liable to be quashed and the present petitioners have committed the offences. He also argued that the petition filed by Smt. Prem Kalra and Smt. Mona Kalra should also be dismissed on the ground that they have not disclosed that they are Director or Managing Director of the Company.
I have gone through the record and have also heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
From the record, I find merit in the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. It is clear from the record that FIR has been registered for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and challan has already been presented. During investigation, the print-outs of the computer copies of the bills are taken from the Shree Ganesh Jewellers, from whom the jewellery was purchased and those print-outs were signed by some official and given to the Police. It is an admitted fact and as is clear from the documents that huge jewellery had been given in dowry. Even the respondent had admitted that they have received the gold ornaments and articles during the marriage. The mere fact that on the carbon copies some amount of another bill had been printed above the bills upon the printed paper itself, will not show that these bills are forged one. The witnesses are to appear before the trial Court during the trial and the respondent will get the opportunity to cross- examine them and to get explanation regarding as to how these entries/ Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [8] amounts came in the printing. Otherwise, as regards the articles given in the computer copies or the amount nothing has been pointed out. There is no allegation in the complaint as to who had forged that. How these bills have been forged and, who had forged and fabricated these bills. Petitioners Smt. Prem Kalra as well as Smt. Mona Kalra, as argued, are the Director and Managing Director of the Company. They have no role in issuing print-outs of the bills. There are no allegations against them that they have falsely created or fabricated these bills specially in view of the allegation that jewellery of more than worth `1 Crore has been given and as per the fact that during the anticipatory bail application, the complainant has admitted receiving a large number of gold items. Even otherwise, there is no law to vicariously hold liable in criminal case the owner, Director or Managing Director etc. Therefore, the complaint does not lie only against Smt. Prem Kalra and Smt. Mona Kalra. But, as already stated, there is nothing to show that bills have been fabricated. There is no report of the expert. There is nothing in the complaint to show that these bills are not correct print-outs.
Therefore, I find that the complaint has been filed to put pressure upon the witnesses in the State case with mala fide intention.
Similarly, as regards the petition filed by Dr. Baldev Raj, I find that he has issued one prescription slip, the copy of which is Annexure-P.3 filed in Criminal Misc. No.M-27550 of 2010. In this prescription slip, he has given opinion to stop Larpose, exercise as advised, tablet Verlin 8 Mg. and Tablet Magadol 180 mg. There is no Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [9] where any opinion of the doctor in this prescription slip. Only allegation is that date 19.12.2008 has been given in the prescription slip and at that time Navneet Kaur was admitted in some hospital at Delhi. Annexure-P.4 is the certificate given by the doctor on 2.4.2009 where he certified that he examined Ms. Navneet Kaur daughter of Tajwant Singh and gone through the medicines, she was taking Tablets Larpose 2 mg. extra than the medicines prescribed in the prescription and the doctor told her that these tablets cause addiction and if taken in excess dose may be dangerous to life. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, no where, has stated that this opinion is incorrect regarding this medicine. He has not challenged this opinion and this opinion is regarding medicine Larpose. On the same day, statement of the doctor under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which he has again given the date 19.12.2008 when he visited the house and checked Navneet Kaur. Now in this petition, there is plea of the learned senior counsel that inadvertently date has been written as 19.12.2008 on the prescription slip instead of 19.11.2008.
This matter is still pending before the trial Court in the State case. The witness may give the explanation regarding this document. The complainant cannot sit on the investigation or the documents collected during the investigation to hold that these are false or fabricated documents. It is first for the trial Court to see whether these documents are false and forged documents. There is no such allegation. Even this witness has not been examined before the Court. Therefore, only on this ground the complainant cannot file the complaint. It is a dangerous trend Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [10] that the accused in the FIR case will first scrutinize the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer or given by the complainant party and then on each and every fact, he will hold his opinion regarding the forgery of the document and he will file the complaint to put pressure on the witnesses. This is, no where, the intention of the law nor this practice can be allowed. The complaint filed by complainant Harjit Singh is totally misuse and abuse of the process of Court and law and has been filed with malicious intention to put pressure upon the witnesses and the complainant and the victim.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman and others v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Cr.) 150, in which the complainant was alleging commission of offence under Sections 211 and 500 IPC. It is held that bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. is clearly attracted to the complaint filed by the respondent. Cognizance could be taken only at the instance of the Court in relation to whose proceedings same committed or who finally dealt with that case.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 178. I have gone through this judgment, which having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in that case a forged Will was tendered in evidence before the Court and it is stated that bar of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. is not applicable as the document was not forged while the same Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [11] was in custody of the Court. But the document was held forged when produced in evidence as in that case complaint was only under Sections 467 and 471 IPC.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MCD v. State of Delhi and another, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1322. I have gone through this judgment. This judgment having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case because there is no concealment of material facts in the present petition, if Smt. Prem Kalra and Smt. Mona Kalra having not disclosed in the petition that they are Director or Managing Director of the Company. They have been summoned in the complaint as accused and the complaint has been filed by the respondent. Rather, in the complaint, the respondent should have told that they are Director and Managing Director of Shree Ganesh Jewellers.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 and Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another v. Datar Switchgear Limited and others, (2010) 10 SCC 479. I have gone through these judgments and these are of no benefit to the respondent and these judgments having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case.
Otherwise also, as per Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, sections 193 to 196, Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-183 of 2010 (O&M)etc. [12] 199 etc., when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. In the present complaint, the accused have also been summoned under Sections 193 and 195 IPC. Again, as already discussed, there is nothing made out from the complaint that these documents have been forged and fabricated one.
Therefore, finding merit in the present petitions, the same are allowed. The complaint as well as summoning order and other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
February 10, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh