RAVI NARANG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., is for quashing the order dtd. 29/7/2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial as additional accused under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. and for quashing the judgment dtd. 7/1/2015 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 29/7/2011, has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2 got registered an FIR No.144 dtd. 20/7/2005 under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana, alleging that accused Gurmeet Lal, in conspiracy with the present petitioner - Ravi Narang, fraudulently got a sale deed registered in the petitioner's favour with the intent to deprive her of a plot. Upon investigation, the police filed a final report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. only against Gurmeet Lal and declared the petitioner innocent. However, after recording the examination-in-chief of PW-1 i.e. husband of respondent No.2, the complainant moved an application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning the petitioner and others as additional accused. The said application was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide order dtd. 29/7/2011 (Annexure P-1), and the revision petition challenging the said order was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 7/1/2015. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, relating to ownership and possession of immovable property, which has already been adjudicated upon by competent Civil Courts. The complainant's suits for possession and declaration were dismissed on merits with specific findings that she failed to prove title or enforceable rights over the property, in question. The present criminal proceedings appear to be a counterblast to those failed civil claims, amounting to misuse of criminal process. The only basis for summoning the petitioner under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. is a vague and uncorroborated one-line statement made by PW-1 in examination-in-chief, without cross-examination. Such a statement, especially in light of the petitioner having been declared innocent by the police and not named in the original FIR, does not meet the threshold required under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., as laid down in "Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab", 2014(3) SCC 92, which requires strong and cogent evidence. Furthermore, the unexplained delay of over a year in filing the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. reflects mala fide intent on the part of the complainant.