Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1404 (PNJ)

Charanjit v. Preeto

2013-10-25

FATEH DEEP SINGH, HEMANT GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- The present appeal has been preferred along with application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 5.8.2010 whereby, the complaint filed by the appellant for an offences under Sections 420/467/468,471 and 120-B IPC was dismissed. Along with the present appeal the appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 1078 days in filing the present appeal. 2. It is pleaded in the application for condonation of delay that the appellant has filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur but consequent to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in case M/s Tata Steel Ltd vs. Atma Tube products Ltd, [2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2033 (FB) : 2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 2881 (P&H) (FB)] : [ILR (2013) 1 Pb. & Hy. 719] holding that in case of acquittal in complaint case, an appeal lies only before this Court, the same was withdrawn and presented before this Court. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find that no case is made out either on the application for condonation of delay or on merits against the order impugned. An appeal against the order of acquittal lies only before this Court and not before the Court of Sessions. The judgment of this Court in M/s Tata Steel Ltd vs. Atma Tube products Ltd does not laid down any new law in respect of forum of appeal. It dealt with as to whether, the Complainant is required to seek leave to appeal or as a victim has a right to file appeal. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay does not warrant any consideration and, thus, dismissed. 4. Even on merits we find that the criminal proceedings have been initiated to settle the civil dispute between the parties. The facts are that in pursuance of order passed by the Assistant Collector, Hoshiarpur, on the basis of compromise dated 23rd June, 1967, an ejectment application was filed by Mohan Lal predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was decided. The compromise was that Sant Ram predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 and 2 agreed to purchase 10 marlas of land. It is alleged that Sant Ram did not purchase the land in terms of the compromise and that the ejectment order was executed. The compromise was that Sant Ram predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 and 2 agreed to purchase 10 marlas of land. It is alleged that Sant Ram did not purchase the land in terms of the compromise and that the ejectment order was executed. Mohan Lal subsequently executed different sale deeds of the sale of the land to various vendees including father of the present appellant. The mutations of sale were entered in favour of the vendees in respect of the un-partitioned land purchased by them. 5. The grievance of the appellant is that after the death of Sant Ram, the mutations of inheritance in respect of 10 marlas was sanctioned in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 in the year 1993. It is alleged that such mutation of land was wrongly sanctioned in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 and was an act of fraud committed by respondents No.1 and 2 along with other official-respondents arrayed as accused. 6. Learned trial Court has found that land measuring 10 marlas was transferred in favour of Sant Ram by way of exchange as per document Ex.P3. The order of Assistant Collector was given effect in the revenue record. The land was mutated in favour of Biru Ram vide Ex. P-4. It has also come on record that respondent-accused filed civil suit claiming passage to the land measuring 10 marlas which was decreed. The first appeal and the second appeal were also dismissed at the instance of the appellant. The decree of the suit claiming passage to the land measuring 10 marlas shows the title of such land was not in dispute or not raised in earlier proceedings before the civil court. The learned trial Court also found that the present complaint has been filed after delay of eight years of sanction of mutation. 7. We find that the present case is a gross abuse of process of law. Firstly Sant Ram is proved to have title on the basis of exchange, mutation of which was sanctioned in the year 1967 as per the document produced by the Appellant. After death of Sant Ram in the year 1971, the mutation of inheritance has been sanctioned in favour of Biru Ram vide Ex.P4. Firstly Sant Ram is proved to have title on the basis of exchange, mutation of which was sanctioned in the year 1967 as per the document produced by the Appellant. After death of Sant Ram in the year 1971, the mutation of inheritance has been sanctioned in favour of Biru Ram vide Ex.P4. The present complaint was filed after eight years not only as a method of arw twisting of the respondents but as a flagrant abuse of the process of law by which civil disputes are sought to be settled by the criminal process. 8. The present complaint has remained pending for 9 years. The appellant has consumed valuable public time of the Court in prosecuting the totally frivolous complaint for a period of 9 years. Such a frivolous complaint filed intentionally with a sinister motive has been rightly dismissed. The filing and trial of such frivolous complaint is at the cost of genuine causes between parties. The appellant has wasted the public time. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the appellant with the District State Legal Service Authority, Hoshiarpur within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The failure to deposit the costs will entitle the Legal Services Authority to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellant. 9. The appeal thus, stands dismissed.