Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 807 (PNJ)

Prem Kumar Rattan v. State of Punjab

2012-07-02

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The epitome of the facts and material, 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 one Girdhari Lal was serving as a Patwari in the revenue department of Punjab. He died on duty on 6.9.1983. His daughter Suman Devi was stated to have got the job of Clerk-cum-Typist on 22.7.1985 on priority basis in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. Dr. Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.2), son of Girdhari Lal, was claimed to have also got the job of Dispenser and then Assistant Medical Officer by concealing material facts on the same grounds on priority basis in the office of Director Ayurvedic, Punjab . 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that respondent No.2 got his indicated job on priority basis by concealing material facts and thus committed the fraud. Although petitioner-complainant Prem Kumar Rattan was not in any way aggrieved or connected with the affairs of employment of Dr. Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.2) by the Govt. of Punjab, but still, he moved a complaint against him (respondent No.2). In the wake of complaint of the complainant, initially a criminal case was registered against respondent No.2, vide FIR No.339 dated 13.8.2007, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 177 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Kotwali, Patiala in the manner described here-in-before. 3. Having thoroughly investigated, the police submitted the untraced report for cancellation of the criminal case. The petitioner-complainant filed a protest petition (Annexure P1) against the cancellation report. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the un-traced report, treated the protest petition as private complaint and summoned respondent No.2 as an accused to face the trial under Sections 177 and 420 IPC, by way of order dated 26.7.2008. 4. Aggrieved by the indicated order, the State of Punjab filed the revision petition, which was accepted. The order of CJM was set aside and the report submitted by the police was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, by means of impugned order dated 5.2.2009. 5. 4. Aggrieved by the indicated order, the State of Punjab filed the revision petition, which was accepted. The order of CJM was set aside and the report submitted by the police was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, by means of impugned order dated 5.2.2009. 5. The petitioner-complainant did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the present petition, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that since respondent No.2 has misrepresented and cheated the concerned department, so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner prayed for acceptance of revision petition in this relevant connection. 6. The respondents refuted the prayer of petitioner and filed their respective replies. The private respondent inter-alia pleaded certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. It was claimed that petitioner is brother-in-law (Nandoia) of Suman Devi, sister of respondent No.2. A large number of cases/litigations have been filed by the parties against each other, which are pending. The instant petition was filed only to harass the private respondent after an inordinate delay of 17 years from his appointment in the year 1993. According to respondent No.2 that since his family suffered severe financial constraints as a result thereof his mother moved an application before the competent authority on the ground that since her daughter Suman Devi, who had been given employment, is not giving any financial assistance to the family after her marriage, so, her son be given some government service on compassionate grounds. The application remained pending for four years and was ultimately processed, when the private respondent, who was a qualified doctor, was given the post of Dispenser in the office of Director Ayurvedic, Punjab in accordance with the instructions. He got that job on his own right. He neither concealed any facts nor committed any fraud. It was the competent authority, who gave the job to the private respondent after due verification and petitioner has no locus standi in this relevant connection. 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. 7. It was the competent authority, who gave the job to the private respondent after due verification and petitioner has no locus standi in this relevant connection. 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. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 8. As is evident from the record that Girdhari Lal, father of respondent No.2, was serving as a Patwari and died on duty on 6.9.1983. His daughter Suman Devi got job on 22.7.1985, whereas Dr. Ramesh Kumar got the job of Dispenser on 16.6.1993. The petitioner lodged the complaint against him (respondent No.2) after more than 14 years of his appointment. No material, much less cogent is forth coming on record, even to suggest remotely that the private respondent has misrepresented the department or gave any false information in order to secure his job of Dispenser. 9. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the private respondent No.2 can be prosecuted under Sections 177 & 420 IPC or not at this belated stage ? 10. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative in this respect. 11. As depicted here-in-above, according to the petitioner-complainant that respondent No.2 has obtained the job on priority basis by concealing the true facts and thus he committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. The offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 IPC, which postulates 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 causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. 12. 12. A conjoint and meaningful reading of Sections 415 & 420 IPC would reveal that in order to hold a person guilty of cheating, not only that, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the relevant time, but at the same time, it was incumbent for the complainant to indicate that he was deceived in any particular manner. In other words, cheating, requires deception of any person inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally inducing the person 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 causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person, anybody’s mind, reputation or property, which is totally missing in the present case. 13. As mentioned here-in-above, since the petitioner-complainant was not in any way aggrieved or connected with the affairs of employment of Dr.Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.2) by the Govt. of Punjab, so, it cannot possibly be saith that he is in any manner aggrieved/complainant of offence of cheating. Meaning thereby, as all the essential ingredients of offence of cheating are deeply lacking in this case, therefore, the private respondent cannot possibly be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC in this relevant direction. Sequelly, since the maximum sentence provided under Section 177 IPC is only six months, so, no Court can take cognizance beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under Section 468 Cr.PC. 14. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner-complainant is brother-in-law (Nandoia) of Suman Devi,, sister of respondent No.2 and is closely related to him. A large number of cross cases/litigations are pending between the parties. The present criminal case appears to have been lodged by the petitioner against the private respondent in order to harass him and to wreak vengeance, which is not legally permissible. Moreover, the investigation is in the domain of the investigating agency. A large number of cross cases/litigations are pending between the parties. The present criminal case appears to have been lodged by the petitioner against the private respondent in order to harass him and to wreak vengeance, which is not legally permissible. Moreover, the investigation is in the domain of the investigating agency. Once the investigating agency concluded that there was no cogent evidence against the accused to prove as to how, when and in what manner, he has misrepresented and cheated the department, in that eventuality, no useful purpose would be served to prosecute respondent No.2 for the pointed offences. More particularly when no material, much less cogent is forth coming on record, even to suggest remotely that the private respondent has misrepresented the department or gave any false information in order to secure his job of Dispenser 15. Thus, seen from any angle, neither respondent No.2 can be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC nor any Court can take cognizance under section 177 IPC against him. So, no case for prosecuting him for the offences in question is made out at this highly belated stage. Therefore, to my mind, the revisional Court has rightly accepted the cancellation report, vide impugned order. Such conclusions cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned conclusion/order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 16. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------