GURDIAL SINGH BRAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURDIAL Singh Brar, the petitioner, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein that the proceedings started against him by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, vide his order dated 4th May, 1985, under Sections 177, 426, 468 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed. The facts which give rise to this petition are as follows :

(2.) ONE Jalaur Singh, son of Kehar Singh was being tried under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act Jalaur Singh was allowed bail by the court in the aforesaid case the petitioner stood surety for his appearance in the Court in the sum of Rs. 5, 000/-. He executed a bail bond, Annexure P-1, on 2nd February 1985, wherein he had shown that he owned eight acres of landed property worth Rs. 1 lakh in village Bagha Purana, and that he owned a house worth Rs. 10,000/- and house-hold goods worth another Rs. 2,000/-. Harbhajan singh Brar, respondent No. 2 in this petition, moved an application in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, that the petitioner did not own 8 acres of land in village Bagha Purana and he owned only a few Marlas of land and that he was wrongly shown in these surety-bond that he owns 8 acres of land and thus has misled the Court by making a false statement. Harbhajan Singh Brar alongwith this application, which is Annexure P-2 with the present petition, placed a certificate from revenue department supporting the contention raised by him. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the same to the conclusion that prima facie it was proved that the petitioner did not own that much land as given by him in the surety bond, therefore, he ordered that he be proceded against under Section 177, 426, 468 of the Indian Penal Code, hence this petition.

(3.) APART from the fact that it is not challenged that the petitioner had sufficient other property apart from this land which can cover the aforesaid amount of surety, this loose expression by the petitioner that he owned eight acres family land certainly cannot be termed as mis-representation or false short of abuse of the process of law. Consequently, this petition is allowed, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga are quashed. Petition allowed.