CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision i.e. Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2000 filed by nine petitioners, who are the appellants in this Appeal. Before the High Court the challenge was to the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana framing charges for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 409 read with Section 120B and Section 420 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The High Court dismissed the revision petition on the ground that there are sufficient grounds to presume that the unrebutted evidences of the complainant constitute triable offences.

(2.) Background facts as projected by appellants in a nutshell are as follows: In February, 1987 the complainant and his five family members executed General Power of Attorney (in short the 'GPA') at Canada in favour of Manvinder Singh and subsequently the said GPA was registered with the Commissioner of Ferozepur, Punjab. The GPA stated that the GPA holder can do anything on behalf of the complainant which he can lawfully do. The GPA does not contain any condition or restriction. In August, 1989 the GPA holder met the appellants with a proposal to sell a plot of land of the complainant admeasuring 4840 square yards comprised in Khasra No. 1085 situated at Village Barewal Awana, Ludhiana. The GPA holder demanded a price of Rs.5 lakhs for the said property. On 4.10.1989 the appellants by an oral agreement agreed to purchase the said property and paid Rs. 1 lakh by way of four demand drafts to the GPA holder. On 7.11.1989 the aforesaid oral agreement was reduced into writing and the balance sum of Rs.4 lakh was also paid (Rs.1 lakh in cash and Rs.3 lakhs by bank drafts). Upon receipt of entire consideration, the GPA holder executed four SPAs in favour of appellant Nos.1 (Chaman Lal), 2 (Daljander Kaur), 3 (Narinder Kaur) and 7 (Balwant Singh). On 5.12.1989 by virtue of the aforesaid 5 SPAs dated 7.11.1989 appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 executed and registered 5 sale deeds in favour of appellant Nos.2 to 6. In the middle of December, 1989 the appellants suddenly came to know that the complainant had filed a suit No. 120/89 dated 28.11.1989 against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 for declaration that the said GPA holder (Manvinder Singh) had no authority to sell the said property and/or to permanently alienate and dispose of the said property. The appellants also came to know that in the said suit for declaration, an ex parte injunction order/status quo was granted on 02.12.1989, though the appellants in the absence of knowledge of such ex parte injunction order had already executed the sale-deeds and got them registered on 05.12.1989. On 14.06.1990 the learned Senior Subordinate Judge passed an order in the aforesaid suit, restraining the appellants from dispossessing the complainant from the said property and to maintain status quo with regard to ownership of the said property pending disposal of the suit, whereas in fact the appellants were already in possession of the said property since 07.11.1989. On 20.8.1990 and 21.11.1990 the appellants preferred an Appeal No. 274/67 in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana praying, inter alia, to maintain the status quo with regard to the ownership and possession of the said property and vide order dated 21.11.1990, the parties were ordered, during pendency of the main suit, to maintain status quo with regard to ownership and possession of the property. On 30.6.1995 the complainant lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana - Shri S.S. Channi, I.A.S., who summoned the appellants at his residence and asked them to cancel the sale-deeds and concede to the claim of the complainant in the civil suit. The Commissioner also threatened the appellants with dire consequences by implicating them in false criminal cases. The said officer is related to the complainant. On 31.08.1995 after a period of about 6 years, on a complaint lodged by the complainant, ah FIR No. 183, Police Station Division No.5 District Ludhiana was registered only against Shri Sadhu Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Ludhiana and Shri Banta Singh, Patwari of Village Barewal Awana under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120 B IPC. On 13.3.1996 on application of the complainant, an inquiry was initiated and marked to the SP City, Ludhiana. On 29.5.1996 the SP City, Ludhiana submitted his Report to the SSP, Ludhiana stating therein that the FIR was the handiwork to pressurize the appellants and further that no such offence had been committed by the appellants. On 14.10.1996 despite the aforesaid report of the SP City, Ludhiana and in spite of the note of the A.D.A. (Legal) that no criminal case was made out against the appellants, a charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the appellants for commission of alleged offences under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471, 120B IPC. On 11.12.1999 the Ld. ACJM, Ludhiana framed charges under Sections 120B read with Section 409 IPC and under Sections 120B/420 IPC against the appellants. The appellants preferred a Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2000 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the maintainability of the charges framed against them and the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the prayer of the appellants by the impugned order holding that there was sufficient ground to presume that the unrebutted evidence of the complainant constitute triable offences.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. The power of attorney was drawn up at Canada and was registered on 19.3.1987 by accused No. 1 at Firozepur, Punjab. The factual scenario described above goes to show that the complaint was nothing but the abuse of the process of court. The ingredients necessary for constituting offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B IPC, are not made out. In any event the complaint was lodged after about six years and this itself is sufficient to show lack of bona fides.