HARMINDER SINGH Vs. PISHORA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the complaint (Annexure P.1) and the summoning orders (Annexures P.2, P.3 and P.4). The facts giving rise to this petition are that Pishora Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) has filed a complaint under Sections 420/467/468/471/209 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, against the petitioners and one Des Raj. According to the allegations in the complaint, Pishora Singh (complainant) purchased a tractor by raising loan from the Samana Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Samana, in the month of April 1988. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 are the Proprietors/Partners/Sales Manager/Employees of M/s. Bansal Automobiles, a firm dealing in tractors 'Eicher'. M/s. Anand Casting and Engineering Works deals in manufacturing of tractor trolleys and other agricultural implements and Des Raj is the Proprietor/Partner of that firm. According to the allegations contained in the complaint, M/s. Bansal Automobiles supplied an old tractor instead of new one and the other concern did not supply tractor trolley to the complainant and all the petitioners including Des Raj got the signatures of the complainant on blank papers including the pronote and receipt dated 18.4.1988 in order to cheat and play fraud upon the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,950/- on account of principal and interest on the basis of the forged and fabricated pronote and receipt dated 18.4.1988 which was dismissed by Sub Judge, I Class, Samana, on 5.5.1989, whereby it was held that the pronote and the receipt were the result of fraud. Accordingly, the said complaint was filed.

(2.) AFTER recording preliminary evidence, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Samana, summoned the petitioners as well Des Raj to face trial under Sections 420/467, I.P.C. On the appearance of the petitioners, it was alleged that no offence was made out against any of the petitioners and the complaint was liable to be dismissed. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Sub Divisional Magistrate by a detailed order dated 3.2.1995 came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 467 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, was made out against the petitioners, but discharged Des Raj. Accordingly, charge was framed against all the petitioners. The petitioners had also moved a separate application for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that a compromise had been effected between the parties in the civil appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge and the complainant had undertaken to withdraw the complaint and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed. These averments were denied by the complainant and it was stated in reply that no such compromise was ever effected nor any such undertaking was given by the complainant. After hearing the counsel for the parties, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the application by order dated May 3, 1994.

(3.) IN reply, respondent No. 1 has again denied having entered into any such compromise. He has further explained that the alleged application for the withdrawal of the appeal was filed by the petitioners not on the date of hearing but on an earlier date, that the complainant was never present before the appellate Court nor made any statement and the plea of the petitioners that any such undertaking was given by him is absolutely false.