Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 79 (PNJ)

Nirmala v. State of Punjab and Another

2014-01-10

REKHA MITTAL

body2014
Rekha Mittal, J. The petitioners have preferred present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code') for quashing of FIR No. 419 dated 22.11.2011 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City and proceedings emanating therefrom. The brief facts of this case are that Mamta, filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 498A IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and the petitioners were summoned to face trial in the said proceedings. The petitioners filed a petition for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The petitioners put in appearance before the trial Magistrate and were ordered to be released on bail. In pursuance to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioners were required to furnish their personal bonds as well as surety bonds. The petitioners produced sureties before the Court, who furnished their surety bonds and produced copies of jamabandies in support of their claim of being competent sureties. The jamabandies produced by the sureties were found to be forged, which led to registration of instant FIR for the aforesaid offence wherein the petitioners have been indicted being a party to the conspiracy with the accused who produced forged jamabandies before the Court. 2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the criminal proceedings initiated by Mamta for offence under Sections 406 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, in which the petitioners were directed to furnish their surety bonds, were eventually quashed by this Court in petition filed by the petitioner, decided on 09.08.2011. 3. The main plea of the petitioners is that even if the sureties produced forged jamabandies, the criminal proceedings could be initiated by the Judicial Magistrate by filing a complaint only in view of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code. It is argued with vehemence that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Court concerned by lodging first information report are barred under Section 195 of the Code. 4. It is argued with vehemence that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Court concerned by lodging first information report are barred under Section 195 of the Code. 4. Another submission made by counsel is that there is no evidence against the petitioners that they had anything to do with the forging of documents or entering into a conspiracy with the sureties for producing forged documents before the Court, therefore, ingredients of offence under Section 120B IPC are not made out, which entitle them to the relief sought for. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has made a vain attempt to argue that the Judicial Magistrate made an order for furnishing of surety bonds without recording any satisfaction that there was substantial risk of their non appearance, in case, they are ordered to be released on their personal bonds. According to counsel, as the petitioners have their ties in the community and no such plea was raised by the prosecution that there is substantial risk of their non appearance, the petitioners were not required to furnish surety bonds and thus cannot be prosecuted for any offence committed by their sureties. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Hussainara Khotoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, 1979 AIR (SC) 1360. 6. Counsel for the State, on the contrary, has strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It is argued that the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is to be established on the basis of other proven facts because it is rarely possible to lead direct evidence to establish conspiracy. It is further argued that as the petitioners arranged sureties for their release on bail, it is difficult to believe, at this stage, that they did not know about their financial and social status and the fact whether they owned land in regard whereof they produced jamabandies before the Court for proving their solvency. The last submission made by counsel is that as the petitioners never challenged the order passed by the trial Magistrate for furnishing of surety bonds, they cannot be allowed to contend that it was not required for them to furnish the surety bonds. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The last submission made by counsel is that as the petitioners never challenged the order passed by the trial Magistrate for furnishing of surety bonds, they cannot be allowed to contend that it was not required for them to furnish the surety bonds. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The only contention of the petitioners which deserves consideration is whether the criminal proceedings initiated by lodging of report with the police are untenable in view of the bar created under Section 195 of the Code. 9. As per allegations in the FIR, the documents produced by the sureties i.e. copies of jamabandies were found to be forged documents. The documents were forged prior to production in the Court. The matter would be different, had a genuine document been produced in the Court, but during its custody with the Court, the same has been interpolated or forged in view of the definition of forgery prescribed under Section 463 IPC. As the documents in question were forged prior to production in the Court, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the criminal proceedings could not be launched by reporting the matter to the police or it could be initiated only by filing a complaint by the Court concerned in view of what has been envisaged in Section 195 of the Code. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakhsi Marwah, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Cri) 178. The judicial officer is a competent person to lodge an FIR as any person can inform the police about commission of a cognizable offence. 10. So far as the plea of the petitioners that they cannot be proceeded criminally on the allegations of being party to the criminal conspiracy with the main accused, who furnished the surety bonds, as had been rightly argued by the State counsel, it is difficult to lead direct evidence to prove conspiracy because invariably it is a secret arrangement between the parties to the conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy is to be inferred from the facts proved on record. The offence of conspiracy is to be inferred from the facts proved on record. As the petitioners arranged sureties and the main accused furnished surety bonds on their behalf, it is difficult to believe, at this stage, that the petitioners were not aware that the documents being produced before the Court are forged one. 11. Another submission by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners could be released on bail on their personal bonds cannot be allowed to be raised in the present proceedings as the order directing furnishing of surety bonds has attained finality, therefore, the petitioners cannot take any advantage to their contention from the judgment in Hussainara Khotoon's case (supra). 12. Counsel for the petitioners in the alternative made a prayer that personal appearance of petitioners Nirmala and Pinki, during trial, may be exempted. It is submitted that Pinki is suffering from some medical condition, therefore, it is difficult for her to be personally present during trial. The petitioners have not produced any document in support of alleged medical condition of Pinki. However, petitioners Nirmala and Pinki would be at liberty to move an application seeking exemption from personal appearance, which shall be decided by the trial Court, on its merits, however, sympathetically. In view of the above, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. However, nothing stated in this order shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.