BALDEV SINGH Vs. SURINDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED -petitioner Baldev Singh has directed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short the Cr.P.C.) for quashing orders dated 1.10.2011 and 8.1.2002 (Annexures P -4 and P -5) passed by respondent No.2 vide which petitioner was initially summoned upon an application filed by respondent No.1 and later on by subsequent order, a complaint was forwarded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C., to the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh (respondent No.3) against the petitioner. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the complaint dated 8.1.2002 Annexure P -6 along with summoning order dated 9.3.2002 (Annexure P -7) along with all subsequent orders in complaint case No.33 dated 31.5.2001 titled as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh versus Ajay Kumar and others under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 for the purchase of House No. HM -14, Phase II, Mohali and paid the entire amount of Rs.55,000/ -, payable at the time of execution of the sale deed after the seller obtained the conveyance deed from PUDA. He was handed over the possession of the property in question. Thereafter, he died and his son i.e., the petitioner came into possession of the said house. Respondent No.1 instituted a suit for possession in the court of civil Judge (Junior Division) Kharar, which upon his application was transferred by order of this Hon'ble Court to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh. It was averred in that suit by respondent No.1 that he had rented out the premises to one Ajay Kumar, a property dealer, who had unauthorizedly sublet the same to the petitioner. In his written statement, the petitioner stated that he was in occupation of the premises not as a sub tenant, but as a prospective owner in part performance of an agreement to sell executed between respondent No.1 and the late father of the petitioner. At the stage of evidence, when the veracity of the agreement to sell stood imminently proved and it became apparent that the case of respondent No.1 would hold no water, he replaced his counsel Shri Tara Chand Gupta with a fresh counsel namely Shri Amar Vivek, Advocate, who acquired a personal interest by entering into a secret deal whereby the property under litigation was purchased by him from his own client and a flurry of proxy litigation ensued. More than 80 cases were filed inter se respondent No.1 and the petitioner wherein the projection was given that the petitioner being a police officer had usurped the property of a poor helpless retired teacher, who was portrayed as the underdog. Whereas in reality, he was pitted against a much stronger adversary, who repeatedly resorted to manipulation and Machiavellian tactics. Resultantly, even when the petitioner's wife was unlawfully dismissed from service and her writ petition challenging the same stands admitted. Further using his clout, the counsel for respondent No.1 prevailed upon the Presiding Officer of the Civil Court, Kharar. Smt. Neelam Arora to adopt a partisan attitude and when the petitioner complained against the latitude shown by Civil Judge, Kharar, Smt. Neelam Arora to the opposite party, to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Hon'ble Court by means of a written complaint as also through successive transfer applications filed before that Court, the District Judge, Ropar and this Hon'ble Court, Criminal contempt proceedings were initiated at the behest of respondent No.1 through the said counsel which are pending. Still further, locus was sought to be acquired by respondent No.1, so as to challenge a declaratory decree granted by the Civil Court, Ludhiana recognizing and endorsing a deed of customary dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and his former spouse (his present spouse was dismissed from service on the allegation of having married a man with a subsisting spouse in violation of Rule 21 of the Government Employees ( Conduct ) Rules, 1966; while the petitioner was exonerated upon the same charge by his department ). This interloping was eventually put to an end with a severe reprimand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) IT has been further pleaded that , be that as it may, respondent No.1 presented a complaint through Shri Amar Vivek, Advocate addressed by name to members of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, namely Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. L Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chalapathi, who treated the same as a writ petition, registering the same as CWP No.13379 of 1996 directed the Sessions Judge, Vigilance, Haryana to raid the premises of one Dhanraj alias Sweetie Mehta, a stamp vendor at Ludhiana and to seize the records on the assertion that the said stamp vendor indulged in corrupt practices, especially in selling of stamp papers in back date. The story set up by respondent No.1 was that the stamp paper upon which the agreement to sell was executed and was in fact purchased recently by the instant petitioner, who had forged the signatures of his late father and respondent No.1 thereon, and that this would stand proved from the register, which allegedly reflected a blank space at the relevant serial no. which pertained to the stamp paper in question (a photocopy of that register had indeed been attached with the said complaint reflecting the blank space). The raid yielded several incriminating documents, but not the said register. However, that photocopy reflecting blank spaces in the register was used to non suit the petitioner right uptill the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently, the petitioner has been ousted from his home. The photocopy of the register was obtained by manipulation and covering the relevant entry so as to reflect the blank space and thereafter, the register was destroyed. Though unfortunate the above allegations are not being levelled for the first time in the instant petition but form part of pleadings between the parties in multifarious proceedings. As a corollary to the above mentioned writ petition, Criminal Misc. Application No. 28407 M of 1999 was filed by respondent No.1, praying for investigation on the basis of a complaint to the effect that the agreement to sell executed between respondent No.1 and the late father of the petitioner was a forged and ante -dated document and that the same had been used in the suit titled as Surinder Mohan versus Ajay Kumar and another in the Court of Smt. Neelam Arora, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.H.B.Chalapathi recalling that as a member of the Division Bench, took cognizance of the complaint vide order dated 3.12.1999 and directed Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar to register a case. Consequently, FIR No.26 dated 21.01.2000 was registered at Police Station, Phase I, Mohali under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the IPC. While that FIR was still under investigation, by concealing the factum of its existence, based upon a finding returned by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, an application was made to its successor Court under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., read with Section 195 (1)(b) of the IPC praying that the Court itself lodge a complaint against the petitioner for giving false evidence in the civil suit. Proceeding under section 340 Cr.P.C. could not have been initiated against the petitioner alongwith seven witnesses who deposed as to the veracity of the allegedly forged agreement to sell, along with stamp vendor and the property dealer, defendant No.1 on account of the fact that an FIR already stood lodged in respect of the alleged forged agreement to sell, the existence of which was deliberately concealed, therefore, misleading the Court to act upon the application. Since the alleged forgery took place at Ludhiana, there is no question of registration of FIR at Mohali but the complaint of respondent No.1 addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police Ropar, alleging that the forged document was used in the Court at Kharar thereby impelling the Court to direct SSP, Ropar to register an FIR. It is alleged that parallel proceedings would not been have initiated by the Court in following the procedure set out under Section 340 Cr.P.C., had respondent No.1 not deliberately concealed the factum of existence of FIR No.26 dated 21.01.2000. Hence this petition.