MAJOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case is a glaring example of misuse of judicial process by a litigant to harass the innocent persons for oblique motive. The applicant along with his brother had taken a loan from State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') for purchase of a tractor by mortgaging their land in favour of the bank. They deposited few installments with the bank from time to time, but ultimately they became defaulters. Thereupon, the bank filed a Civil Suit for recovery of the outstanding loan amount against them. The said suit was contested by the applicant and his brother by disputing the outstanding amount and on other grounds. Ultimately, vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2002, the suit filed by the bank was decreed. It appears that against the said judgment and decree, no appeal was filed. However, during pendency of the said suit, the applicant filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating action against K.K. Mehta, Branch Manager of the bank for filing the suit on fabricated documents. The said application was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 1.6.2002. Undisputedly, no revision/appeal was filed against the said order and the same became final.

(2.) After dismissal of the above-said application and passing of the judgment and decree against the applicant, he filed a criminal complaint against the Chief Manager, K.K. Mehta, who was the Branch Manager, R.P. Jain, Field Officer and V.K. Galhotra, Chief Manager of the bank under Sections 196/199/420/409/120-B IPC alleging therein that he had paid an amount of Rs. 4,000/- on 23.2.1998 and Rs. 3,000/- in June, 1998 to K.K. Mehta for crediting the same in his account, but instead of depositing the said amount in his account, he had misappropriated the same in collusion with other accused, and thereafter, by adducing the false evidence, they procured a Civil Court decree against him.

(3.) In the said complaint, only K.K. Mehta was summoned under Section 409 IPC. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself and one Harchand Singh as CW1, and placed on record certain documents.