This is a petition seeking quashing of a complaint and summoning order alleging cheating. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to show infirmity in the impugned order as the plea required appreciation of evidence and was not believed outright. The petition was dismissed.
None.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M-12625 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-12625 of 2010 Date of decision : 26.07.2011
Dharam Singh
....Petitioner
V/s
Swaran Kaur
....Respondent
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint dated 26.04.2007 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed pursuant thereto by S.D.J.M. Nabha.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, lease deed dated 18.10.1996 was voluntarily executed by the complainant. There was, thus, no question of defrauding her. She had preferred the instant complaint with a oblique motive. According to him, no offence under section 420 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that the accused had obtained signatures of complainant-Swaran Kaur on various blank stamp papers by saying that he intends to obtain loan from a bank and committed fraud. In
Criminal Misc. No. M-12625 of 2010
2
view of same, the instant complaint was filed against the petitioner. According to him, the entire issue is a question of evidence and thus petitioner has wrongly sought interference by this court in its inherent jurisdiction.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
A complaint was lodged by Swaran Kaur alleging that accused Dharam Singh asked her to stand guarantee for a loan which he intends to take from a bank. The complainant having believed the petitioner in good faith agreed to accompany the complainant to Sub Tehsil Complex, Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha on 18.10.1996. However, accused obtained her signatures on various stamp papers and registers. Later, the complainant came to know about the lease-deed which had been executed by committing fraud and misrepresentation in connivance with the scribe. The complainant alleged that as a result of fraud lease-deed/Wasika No. 378/1. dated 18.10.1996 was executed in favour of Chandi Gram Udyog Samiti (Registered), Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha. She, thereafter, lodged the instant complaint. After examining the preliminary evidence brought on record by the complainant, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused and thus summoned him to face trial under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The plea raised by the complainant was supported by Lambardar Hans Raj, who appeared as CW-3 before the court below. Another witness who supported the version of the complainant is Anil Kumar- CW-4 who deposed that Dharam Singh has moved an application for loan in their department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity legal or otherwise with the impugned order summoning the petitioner to face trial. The plea
Criminal Misc. No. M-12625 of 2010
3
raised by the petitioner cannot be believed outright. The contentions raised before this court can only be appreciated after evidence is led before the trial court.
Under the circumstances, no case for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court is made out. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
September 02, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations of false implicate and lack of cheating merit quashing under inherent powers of the High Court.
Whether the learned Magistrate had sufficient evidence to summon the accused for trial under the relevant provision.
Whether this Court should interfere in a proceeding that essentially turns on questions of evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dharam Singh
Swaran Kaur
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
