PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. HAKAM LAL SARHADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pardeep Kumar accused-petitioner seeks quashment of complaint Annexure P-1 as well as order Annexure P-2 of the trial Court dated 21.4.1989 summoning him under Sections 420, 463, 468 and 470 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Hakam Lal Sarhadi complainant in the complaint, Annexure P-1 had alleged that Pardeep Kumar petitioner obtained wrong domicile certificate of his residence of House No. 121, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh, in order to procure dealership of petrol pump from the reserved category. It is further averred that Pardeep Kumar petitioner while applying to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chandigarh for obtaining domicile certificate has depicted his parentage as Pardeep Kumar son of Dewan Singh. It is further averred that Pardeep Kumar was depicted by Rattan Chand co-accused as his son while obtaining ration card on 13.9.1982. The fact that the domicile certificate was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the day) it was applied for has also been averred although normally it takes 5 to 7 days to complete the formalities. It is also maintained that Rattan Chand used his official position as being the District Forest Officer in procuring the domicile certificate and that earlier also the petitioner had lodged a complaint the higher authorities including the Deputy Commissioner. Chandigarh, the concerned Minister and others regarding the above-referred misrepresentation regarding parentage of Pardeep Kumar petitioner.

(3.) The trial court after examining the complainant an two other witnesses who had produced the relevant record, had passed the impugned order summoning the accused-petitioner to face trial for the above-referred offences by holding that domicile certificate was obtained by giving false declaration and clarification with the help of Rattan Chand accused No. 1. The factum that the petrol pump was taken in the name of the concern as Vishal and one of the sons of Rattan Chand also happens to be Vishal, was also used to conclude that infact the outlet was taken by Rattan Chand. The petitioner then filed revision petition against the abovesaid impugned order of the trial Court which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 9.3.1990, mainly on the ground that it cannot be said that even if the evidence produced by the complainant is un-rebutted, no case under the above referred offences is made out. It was further remarked that the accused-petitioner had yet to lead evidence and prove his version that he was bona fide domicile of Chandigarh.