STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BRIJ LAL PALTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab quashing the proceedings pending against the respondent in the court of a Magistrate at Faridkot under Ss. 408, 467, 471, 381, 385, 182, 211, 193 and 109, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The factual position as it emerges out of a confused mass of facts stated in the petitions filed under S. 561-A in the High Court and the affidavits etc., may be briefly stated. The respondent submitted an application to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, on November 3, 1963 for registration of a case under Ss. 420 and 406 read with Ss. M, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against Shibbu Ram Mittal a Director of Shiv General Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi, who was originally stated to be residing at Kot Kapura and certain other persons who were the directors of the aforesaid company or connected therewith. The main allegations made by the respondent were that be was induced by Shibbu Ram Mittal to part with a sum of Rs. 25,000/. for the purchase of property in Delhi with an assurance that the property when purchased would yield profits. The payment of this amount was alleged to have been confirmed by P. D. Srivastava, Managing Director of the said company by a letter dated April 28, 1962. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was alleged to have been paid over to Om Parkash Gupta Director and Secretary of the company. As no property was purchased by Shibbu Ram Mittal the respondent pressed for the refund of the amount. On October 5, 1963, a sum of Rs. 1500/- was refunded in part payment The respondent got a report noted in the police station Paharganj, New Delhi, on that date regarding the factum of a visit to Delhi for the purpose of claiming the refund of the entire amount. According to him he pressed for the payment of the balance of the amount of Rs. 23,500/- but ultimately he was told that no amount had ever been entrusted by him to Shibbu Ram Mittal and that all the documents on which he relied were forged. It appears that on the basis of the letter addressed by the respondent to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, First Information Report No. 4 dated January 16, 1964 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot. After investigation Shri Sita Ram, District Inspector, Bhatinda filed a police report dated March 18, 1965 under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this report it was stated that as a result of the investigation it had been found that the case of the respondent as made out in his application on which the First Information Report had been registered was altogether false and it was the respondent and one Hukam Chand who had been guilty of various offences including forgery. A charge sheet was submitted against them under Ss. 408, 467, 474, 193, 385, 109, 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Meanwhile on 16-2-1965 the respondent filed a complaint before a Magistrate, First Class at Faridkot against Shibbu Ram Mittal and others making the same allegations which he had made in the application submitted to the Assistant Suprintendent of Police on the basis of which the First Information Report No. 4 was registered. The respondent filed a petition under S. 561-A of the Cr. P. C. in the High Court for quashing the proceedings pending against him. Although in that petition a number of points were raised the decision of the High Court rested mainly on the ground that until the First Information Report which had been registered at the instance of the respondent had been cancelled by the Magistrate it was not open to the police to ask for prosecution of the respondent for the alleged offences. The High Court also referred to the complaint which had been filed by the respondent on the same allegations on which the First Information Report had been registered and which was still pending.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State contends that there is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that once the First Information Report had been registered it had to be cancelled by the Magistrate either under S. 169 or under any other section of the Cr. P. C., before a charge sheet could be submitted disclosing the offences committed by the informant himself including offences under Ss. 182 and 211 of the Penal Code. It is not necessary to decide this point in view of our decision on the second point