KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 18/4/2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar, whereby the application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-4) has been rejected for registration of FIR against the private respondents and has been treated as a complaint. Further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction to the official respondents to register an FIR against respondents No.5 to 9 under Ss. 342, 323, 364, 364A, 386, 506 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner, who is running an LT. Company, knew respondent No.5 for the last 3-4 years, who had introduced himself as a Doctor. In July 2023, respondent No.5 had introduced the complainant to respondents No.7 to 9 and they asked the complainant to do web designing work. Respondent No.6-Rajinder Singh knew the complainant from October 2023, who introduced himself as Retired Army Personnel. The complainant was in need of certain amount for smooth functioning of the IT Company, pursuant to which, respondent No.6 agreed to lend money amounting to Rs.10.00 lakhs to the complainant (interest free loan) which was to be returned in installments. An amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was transferred by complainant in account No.1488000101183504 maintained with Punjab National Bank Chandigarh and an agreement on non-judicial stamp paper was prepared on 9/11/2023. The said Agreement was also signed by respondent No.7 as witness and out of this amount, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.70,000.00 in the account of respondent No.6 on 8/12/2023. On further instructions of respondent No.6, an amount of Rs.23,800.00 was transferred by the complainant in the account of Manjit Kaur and further an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 was transferred by the complainant in the account of Babandeep Kaur on 10/11/2023. From 27/1/2024 to 29/1/2024, respondent No.5 made numerous phone calls to the complainant requesting that he along with 4/5 individuals wants to invest in a property and they wanted to consult the complainant for the same. Upon which the complainant told respondent No.5 that they can come and meet the complainant in Chandigarh, however, respondent No.5 told the complainant that the documents of his vehicle were not complete, hence he called the complainant to Sector-82, at Sagar Ratna Restaurant SAS Nagar, Mohali. The complainant/petitioner went to the said Restaurant on 29/1/2024 at around 03:00 PM where respondent No.5 along with respondent No.8 and one unknown person was present. The complainant, respondent No.5 and his two friends took tea and snacks. Thereafter, when the complainant told the respondent No.5 that he had some work as such, he wanted to go, respondent No.5 stopped him and after some time, respondent No.6 came there and after about 10 minutes, respondent No.7 also came there. The respondent No.5 and two persons i.e. respondent No.8 and another person accompanying him also went out of the Restaurant. When respondent No.5 went out, then respondent No.7 threatened the complainant and demanded his mobile phone. He snatched his mobile phone and forcibly took keys of his car. Thereafter, respondents No.6 and 7 forcefully made the complainant to sit in his car and took him towards the Airport Road. Respondent No.6 was driving the car of the complainant and respondent No.7 held the complainant on the back seat of the car and kept beating him and started abusing him with derogatory remarks. Respondent No.7 abused the complainant and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, respondents No.6 and 7 took the complainant to a deserted place where a black coloured vehicle was already parked in which two unidentified persons were sitting. After this, respondents No.6 and 7 forcefully made the complainant sit in the black coloured car. Out of the two persons sitting in the black car, one of them was holding a pistol in his hand and the other person was holding a datar and both of them were threatening the complainant to kill him. They had beaten the complainant very badly and had demanded Rs.25.00 lakh from him. He made calls to his friend to arrange money. Under compelling circumstances and pressure, the wife of the complainant handed over the original Sale Deed of the flat to Rohit Sharma. Thereafter, on 30/1/2024, respondents No.5 to 9 took the complainant to Kharar Tehsil at about 04:30 PM where they went to the office of Notary Public, namely, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Cabin No.69, Kharar and they forcibly got signed some papers from the complainant. Further, a cheque amounting to Rs.42.00 lakhs was got signed. He was threatened that if he made any complaint to any police station, they would kill him and his family members. The complainant submitted detailed complaint to SSP Mohali on 1/2/2024 which was entrusted to SP(D) Mohali for enquiry. He narrated the whole incident to the police authority that the complainant had received life threats from private respondents No.5 to 9, but no action has been taken thereon. Respondent No.5 had sent a legal notice under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through his Advocate on 26/2/2024 to make payment of Rs.42.00 lakhs on the said cheque which was forcibly got filled and signed from the complainant/petitioner while the complainant was wrongfully confined by the respondents No.5 to 9. They had also filed another complaint against the complainant/petitioner with Ludhiana Police on 26/2/2024. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved an application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-4) for registration of FIR against respondents No.5 to 9, under Ss. 342, 323, 364, 364A, 386, 506 and 120B IPC which was dismissed by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar vide order dtd. 18/4/2025 (Annexure P-7) and it was directed to treat it as a complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although respondents No.5 to 8 have committed serious cognizable offence punishable under the IPC, but the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar has not issued direction for registration of the FIR and while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-7), it is directed to treat the application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint which is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Lalita Kumari versus State of Uttar Pradesh', (2014) 2 SCC 1.