KESHWA NAND Vs. BHAG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KESHWA Nand, a proprietor of M/s. Rahul Steel and Agro Industries, Jalalpur, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P-1, summoning order Annexure P-2 and all subsequent proceedings based on the complaint, including the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present petition are that Bhag Singh respondent is partner of M/s. Paneshar Steel and Agro Industries, Alipur, Tehsil Khanna while his sons Ravinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh are the partners of M/s. Inder Singh and Sons, Amloh. Both the firms had business dealings with the firm M/s. Rahul Steel and Agro Industries, Jalalpur. A suit was brought by M/s. Inder Singh and Sons for recovery of Rs. 1,16,351.15 against Keshwa Nand. In his written statement to that suit, Keshwa Nand alleged that there were no sale transactions between the parties to the suit and that there was only a billing arrangement with M/s. Inder Singh and Sons as well as with M/s. Paneshar Steel and Agro Industries. Keshwa Nand also filed a suit against M/s. Panesar Steel and Agro Industries and M/s. Inder Singh and Sons for recovery of Rs. 2,36,000/- on the basis of bill No. 3 dated April 12, 1986 and bill No. 4 dated April 14, 1986. Bhag Singh respondent alleged that both these bills were pieces of patent forgery and clear evidence of fabrication of record and false evidence, for the purposes of producing in a court of law and for being used in the judicial proceedings, knowing and having reason to believe that the documents to be produced in Court were fabrications and forgeries. On these allegations, Bhag Singh filed a complaint against the present petitioner on May 13, 1987, for offences under Sections 465, 467 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE petitioner alleged that in the civil litigation that was pending between the parties, a joint application was moved desiring to appoint Shri Pawan Kumar Sharda as an Arbitrator and the parties agreed to be bound by the decision given by him. Shri Pawan Kumar Sharda was accordingly appointed as Arbitrator but he submitted his report without perusing the record. The report favoured the respondent, against which objections were filed, but the same were dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner had to approach this Court by filing five separate revision petitions. It was further pleaded that pendency of the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint was simply filed with a view to put pressure on the petitioner so that he may admit the illegal claim of the respondent. Had the respondent been convinced that the bills were forged, he would not have agreed to the appointment of an Arbitrator. In the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in this petition were denied.