Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2021 (PNJ)

Madan Lal @ Balwant Singh v. State Of Haryana

2007-11-19

SURYA KANT

body2007
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. In this petition under section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks transfer of the trial proceedings arising out of FIR No. 316 dated 10.3.1998 under sections 420, 511, 467, 468, 471, 379, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Karnal, which are pending in the court of Shri Vijay Singh learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, to a court of competent jurisdiction outside the State of Haryana. 2. The facts may be noticed briefly. 3. The above stated FIR has been registered on a complaint made by the petitioner alleging forgery of a lease deed purported to have been executed by one Rishi Pal Arya in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4. The said lease deed pertains to a piece of agricultural land measuring 33 kanal 10 marlas. 4. It appears that during the course of investigation, a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Madhuban was obtained to ascertain genuineness of the signatures of the lessor (Rishi Pal Arya) on the lease deed in dispute and as per the report given by one Gulshan Rai, Assistant Director, FSL, Madhuban, the signatures were found to be genuine. Relying upon the said report, the investigating agency presented a cancellation report against which the petitioner filed his protest petition. The petitioners objections were accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the extent that re- investigation was directed. The investigating agency, however, again filed a cancellation report, which was objected to by the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate finally accepted the petitioners objections and vide order dated 23.3.2006 (Annexure P-4), summoned the accused persons to face trial. 5. The petitioner - complainant has now come up with a prayer to seek transfer of the above stated trial proceedings outside the State of Haryana, inter- alia, on the grounds :- (i) respondents No. 2 to 4, who are the main accused and beneficiaries of the alleged forged lease deed, are real maternal uncles of Shri Virender Singh who is presently posted as a District & Sessions Judge in the adjoining Sessions Division of Yamuna Nagar; (ii) their another co- accused R.S. Bhoria, presently posted as Tehsildar (respondent No. 6), is brother of Shri K.S. Bhoria, IAS, Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Home, Jail, Criminal Investigation and Administration of Justice Department; (iii) similarly, respondent No. 5 - Surender Sharma, the then SHO, is also presently posted at Karnal. 6 The petitioner, thus, apprehends that as a cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, he is not likely to get a fair and impartial trial at Karnal and/or any other place in the State of Haryana. 7. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their respective replies. Suffice to say that the above stated relationships pointed out by the petitioner are not in dispute though the respondents have countered the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the alleged forgery of the lease deed. In other words, the respondents are defending themselves on merits of the case. 8. On the other hand and in order to substantiate his plea that the investigating agency has been totally unfair to him from the very inception and has been acting under the dictates of the senior administrative authorities of the Sate, the petitioner relies upon a report dated 18.1.2001 given by an Inspector General of Police, who, after holding a fact finding inquiry regarding genuineness of the lease-deed, concluded as follows :- "1. The blank agreement was signed by the forged man and it was written later on. In beginning space between lines 1 narrow and widen in the end. The purpose was only to cover the documents up to signatures. 2. The statements of 16 persons have been recorded and none of them has stated that Sh. Rishi Pal Arya signed the agreement in their presence not even a single one. 3. No entry Sr. number was put on agreement of Notary Register. 4. Sh. Jai Parkash Notary Public Karnal has identified as Sh. Rishi Pal was a bogus Rishi Pal. 5. The signatures of bogus Rishi Pal in Notary Register and signature on agreement seems similar. 6. There is overwriting/cutting on date below the signature of Sh. Devender Singh Advocate, actual date was 7.4.1993 under this 6.3.1993 as admitted by Sh. Devender Singh Advocate. 7. The document was prepared on 7.4.1993 as admitted by Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate and entry was made in back date in Notary Register that date shown as 6.3.1993, while actual date was 7.4.1993 as admitted by Notary himself in privately. 8. Devender Singh Advocate, actual date was 7.4.1993 under this 6.3.1993 as admitted by Sh. Devender Singh Advocate. 7. The document was prepared on 7.4.1993 as admitted by Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate and entry was made in back date in Notary Register that date shown as 6.3.1993, while actual date was 7.4.1993 as admitted by Notary himself in privately. 8. There is cutting and overwriting in Khasra number in the main document. 9. The 08 dis-similarities are observed in signatures in dispute which can be seen in comparative study of signatures filed placed at. 10. It is forged/bogus documents. 11. The opinion of expert is unreasonable, unjustified and false and avoided the clearcut opinion in second case (document)." 9. It is undoubtedly true that the learned District & Sessions Judge, who is reportedly related to respondents No. 2 to 4, being a dignified and upright senior officer, would never ever interfere with performance of divine duties of another judicial officer and, thus, no occasion could arise for him to tamper with the impartiality and judicial integrity of the learned Presiding Officer before whom the trial proceedings are pending. 10. In such like piquant situation, this court would endeavour not only to protect honest and upright judicial officers but would also ensure that public faith in justice delivery system is not eroded. 11. Cicero had reminded that "the foundation of justice is good faith". In the facts and circumstances of the case, the oftenly applied principle that "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done", appears to be the most effective tool to resolve the dilemma. 12. Besides this, the petitioner is only a complainant and it is for the prosecution machinery of the State to lead evidence and prove the charges. The petitioners apprehension that respondent No. 6 may exert his administrative influence upon the Public Prosecutor and defeat the cause of justice, therefore, is not wholly without any basis. 13. More elaborate discussion on the question(s) raised hereinabove may unnecessarily prejudice either of the parties. 14. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The petitioners apprehension that respondent No. 6 may exert his administrative influence upon the Public Prosecutor and defeat the cause of justice, therefore, is not wholly without any basis. 13. More elaborate discussion on the question(s) raised hereinabove may unnecessarily prejudice either of the parties. 14. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The trial proceedings arising out of FIR No. 316 dated 10.3.1998, under sections 420, 511, 467, 468, 471, 379, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station: City Karnal, which are pending in the court of Shri Vijay Singh learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal are directed to be transferred to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chandigarh, who is further directed to entrust the same to a learned Judicial Magistrate of Punjab cadre posted at Chandigarh. 15. The parties are directed to appear in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 11.12.2007.