HARDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Criminal Procedure Code) prays for pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioner in case FIR No. 229 dated 12.6.2004, registered under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for brevity, 'Indian Penal Code'), with Police Station, City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

(2.) THE prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that after the death of one Smt. Indrawati on 9.9.1983, the petitioner has falsely set up an Agreement dated 10.2.1992 with her in respect of some dispute. There are allegations that the agreement constituted the basis of an award of the same date pronounced by one Shri Naranjan Singh Saini, Advocate. The petitioner is alleged to have produced some other woman impersonating as Indrawati for execution of a false agreement and the award. The aforementioned impersonator was identified by two other Advocates, namely, Naranjan Singh Saini and Lal Ram Saini before the Court and by Lambardar, Gurcharan Singh before the Revenue Authority at the time of mutation. When these facts were revealed at the time of hearing of Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2003, titled 'Hardev Singh versus Rameshwar Das and others' before the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, the learned Additional District Judge addressed a letter to the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner as well as the others. It is pertinent to mention that one Rameshwar Dass had filed a criminal complaint with similar allegations before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kurukshetra and the investigation by the police under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code was ordered. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, rejected the pre-arrest bail application on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary because only he could reveal the name of the woman who impersonated Indrawati for procuring Agreement and Award dated 10.2.1992. The argument of the petitioner with regard to compromise and affidavit dated 26.8.2004 alleged to have been executed by the legal representative of Rameshwar Dass son of late Smt. Indrawati exonerating the petitioner of all the allegations, was also rejected as the veracity to two documents, namely, Agreement and Award dated 10.2.1992 was yet to be established and the legal representatives had not produced the original compromise alongwith their affidavit before the Investigating Officer.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel at considerable length, I am of the considered view that no case for exercising discretion under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code is made out. During the course of hearing of Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2003, titled 'Hardev Singh versus Rameshwar Dass and others', the learned Additional District Judge came across a fraud committed by the petitioner. On the basis of record before the learned Additional District Judge, a letter was addressed by him to the learned District and Sessions Judge which constituted the basis for recording the FIR. The petitioner is alleged to have produced a woman in 1992 impersonating one Indrawati, who has died on 9.9.1983. The impersonator has been duly identified by other Advocates and an agreement was got executed from the impersonator in the name of Indrawati on 10.2.1992 and on the same day, award was announced by Shri Naranjan Singh Saini, Advocate. The petitioner is alleged to have played a pivotal role in the execution of the fraud. It is also evident that the petitioner alongwith his other associates has misused his status as Advocate. Who was the woman produced for impersonating Indrawati ? Whether any consideration was paid to her by the petitioner in cash or kind. The aforementioned questions and many other related questions remain unsolved. In order to unfold the mystery, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would obviously be required. The Supreme Court in the case of State (CBI) v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 268 (SC) : (1997)7 SCC 187, has observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning an accused who is armed with a cushioned order of pre-arrest bail. The following observations of their Lordships in the aforementioned case are also applicable to the facts of the present case, which read as under :-