Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 231 (PNJ)

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-02-09

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. :— The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, complainant Vijay Kumar son of Suresh Kumar respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), after taking the loan from the Canara Bank, had purchased the scooter, bearing registration No.PB-08-AJ-9468. Ramjit Singh (petitioner No.2) stood surety/guarantor against the loan. The complainant sold the scooter to Gurdeep Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, vide receipt dated 6.2.2006 (Annexure P2). Since the complainant did not hand over the RC of the scooter and no dues certificate as promised, so, Gurdeep Singh-purchaser filed the complaint (Annexure P3) before the police against him. 2. According to the petitioners that Ramjit Singh (petitioner No.2) had filed the complaint against Kamal and Bhushan relatives of the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Some other complaints were also pending against Tanuja Luthra, sister and Pawan Luthra, brother of the complainant. The complainant was stated to have lodged a false criminal case as a counter blast against the petitioners-accused on the ground that on 11.1.2006, they (petitioners) came to his house, started abusing and asked him as to why he (complainant) had not returned the instalments, as the bank was harassing them (petitioners) being guarantor. It was claimed that ultimately, they (petitioners-accused) forcibly took the scooter and empty gas cylinder from his house. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by way of FIR No.42 dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 451, 380 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar. 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the criminal case, petitioner Gian Singh (since deceased) and his son Ramjit Singh have preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that the complainant has falsely lodged the FIR against them as a counter blast to the complaint under section 138 of the Act filed by Ramjit Singh (petitioner No.2) against his (complainant) sister and brother. The matter was inquired into and the police came to the conclusion that the complainant has lodged a false case against the petitioners and recommended for cancellation of the case, by means of detailed reports dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure P4) and 15.9.2008 (Annexure P5). 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the petitioners claimed that the complainant has lodged the complaint vexatiously and maliciously in order to wreak vengeance. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinbefore. 5. The respondents refuted the prayer of petitioners. The State of Punjab filed its reply, whereas the complainant filed his separate reply, wherein it was pleaded that no doubt, initially, the case was recommended for cancellation, by virtue of report (Annexure P4), but subsequently, in pursuance of order dated 6.9.2007 (Annexure R1/T) of Superintendent of Police City-1, Jalandhar, the case was re-investigated and it was recommended to take further action against the accused, after obtaining the opinion of DA Legal, vide report dated 23.2.2008 (Annexure R2/1). However, the factum of recommendation for cancellation of the case, by way of reports (Annexures P4 & P5) is not denied. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the replies and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that the respondents have reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P1) and pleaded that the petitioners-accused committed the indicated offences. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that petitioner Ramjit Singh had filed a criminal case against the sister and brother of the complainant under section 138 of the Act. It is not a matter of dispute that the complainant had purchased the scooter in question, after obtaining the loan from the Canara Bank and petitioner Ramjit Singh stood surety/guarantor against the loan. It is not a matter of dispute that the complainant had purchased the scooter in question, after obtaining the loan from the Canara Bank and petitioner Ramjit Singh stood surety/guarantor against the loan. It has come in evidence that the complainant had already sold the scooter to Gurdeep Singh son of Gurmukh Singh and received its sale consideration, vide receipt (Annexure P2). This fact was also confirmed by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation of the present case. Once it stands proved on record that the complainant had already sold the scooter, handed over its possession to Gurdeep Singh and received its sale consideration on 6.2.2006, then the question of its taking away by the petitionersaccused from his house, did not arise at all. This fact alone negate and nullify the case and the complainant appears to have lodged the present false case against the petitioners, by means of FIR (Annexure P1) as a counter blast to the complaint under section 138 of the Act. 8. Not only that, in the wake of legal objection of Deputy DA that there was no evidence against the petitioners-accused, the matter was re-investigated. During the course of investigation, it was found that the complainant had sold the scooter to Gurdeep Singh and received the sale proceeds, vide receipt (Annexure P2). The complainant admitted his signatures on the receipt. Therefore, it was recommended that the case be cancelled, through the medium of report dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure P4). No doubt, on the application of the complainant, the SP ordered the re-investigation of the case, vide report (Annexure R1/T) and the Investigating Officer recommended to proceed with the case against the petitioners, after obtaining the opinion of DA Legal, by virtue of report dated 23.2.2008 (Annexure R2/1), but at the same time, petitioner Ramjit Singh and his wife moved the application to Principal Secretary to CM Punjab for inquiry into the matter, as according to them, they have been falsely implicated in the indicated case. Thereafter, the matter was again thoroughly inquired/investigated in detail by the DSP Crimes Branch, Chandigarh. 9. Thereafter, the matter was again thoroughly inquired/investigated in detail by the DSP Crimes Branch, Chandigarh. 9. Sequelly, taking into consideration the previous long enmity/litigation between the parties and the fact that two similar false criminal cases registered at the instance of the complainant against the petitioners and others, were quashed by the High Court, the petitioners were found innocent and it was concluded by the investigating agency, vide report (Annexure P5) that they (petitioners) have been falsely implicated by the complainant. Once the matter was thoroughly investigated and the petitioners were found innocent by the latest detailed report (Annexure P5), in that eventuality, re-starting of further proceeding in the same very case, in pursuance of FIR (Annexure P1), will amount to deep misuse of process of law, which is not legally permissible. 10. Meaning thereby, it is established on the record that the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously lodged the criminal case against the petitioners in order to wreak vengeance and as a counter blast to the earlier complaints under section 138 of the Act, as discussed hereinabove. Therefore, the indicated criminal case is liable to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.