RAMESH KUMAR CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Ramesh Kumar Chawla for quashing FIR No. 35 dated 12.6.1994 under Sections 465/468/471/209/193/120-B IPC (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station City Fazilka and subsequent order dated 2.9.1996 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fazilka framing the charges against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 11 under Sections 468/471/120-B and appellate order dated 6.5.1997 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Keshap Chander Setia was the owner of a house measuring about 14 marlas in the revenue estate of village Panchanwalli, Mohalla Hazur Singh near Bus Stand, Fazilka. There was civil litigation in respect of said house between Keshap Chander Setia and Vijay Kumar and others. Vijay Kumar filed Civil Suit No. 384/1 dated 25.7.1989 titled as Vijay Kumar v. Keshap Chandar and other while civil suit No. 383/1 dated 12.6.1991 was filed by Roshan Lal titled as Roshan Lal v. Keshap Chandar. Suit filed by Vijay Kumar was for possession of residential house by way of specific performance of agreement for sale dated 24.4.1987. The suit filed by Roshan Lal was also for specific performance of the agreement dated 31.12.1986 entered into with him by defendant No. 1 for the sale of house in dispute. Both the said suits were ordered to be decided together as the decision of civil suit No. 383 of 12.6.1991 depended upon civil suit No. 383 of 25.7.1989. While civil suit No. 384/1 dated 25.7.1989 tilted as Vijay Kumar v. Keshap Chander and others was decreed by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Abohar vide his judgment and decree dated 26.10.1991, civil suit No. 383/1 dated 12.6.1991 was dismissed with costs. After the suit of Vijay Kumar was decreed he lodged FIR No. 35 dated 12.6.1994 against Ramesh Kumar Chawla and respondents 2 and 11. The case was investigated and final report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in the court of Illaqa Magistrate. Charges under sections 468/471/120-B were framed vide order dated 2.9.1996. The order framing the charge was challenged in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur by way of revision petition but that revision petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 6.5.1997. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the FIR and the orders passed has come to this Court with the present petition.

(3.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences complained of. It was further argued that once the agreement to sell dated 31.12.1986 entered into between Keshap Chandar Setia with Roshan Lal and others, alleged to be forged one, was produced in the Court, only that court had the jurisdiction to file a complaint with regard to the alleged forgery and no other person had any jurisdiction to lodge the complaint in that regard much- less to get the case registered. According to the learned Counsel the police should have not registered the case and put up the challan after investigation in the Court. If, at all, the challan was presented the trial Court after it had come to its notice that agreement of a sale dated 31.12.1986 had already been produced in the Court should not have taken cognizance of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and framed the charges. That aspect was not considered even by the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the order framing the charges had been challenged in revision. It was strenuously argued that the agreement to sell dated 31.12.1986 was produced in the civil court during the trial of the civil suits. Not only this, the trial Court while deciding the suits; one filed by Vijay Kumar and the other filed by Roshan Lal did not record any finding that agreement to sell dated 31.12.1986 was a forged document. Even any observation to that effect was not made as is apparent from the judgment dated 26.10.1991, Annexure P-4. It was submitted that viewed from any angle the FIR No. 35 dated 12.6.1994 (Annexure P-1), order dated 2.9.1996 (Annexure P-2) framing the charges and the order dated 6.5.1997 (Annexure P-3) passed by the revisional court and other proceedings taken in the matter deserve to the quashed. In support of his assertions the learned Counsel relied upon Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh, 1996 3 RCR(Cri) 240 and Bhan Singh v. State of Punjab,1996 3 RCR 679.