Dismissed

Rajinder Pal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2012CRM-M/14148/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed a writ petition filed for quashing an FIR, holding that the petitioner repeatedly abused the process of law by making frivolous and dishonest attempts over multiple years. The court applied the principle of suppressio veri to strike out the petition and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs quantified at `25,000/- payable to Punjab State Legal Services Authority.

Rajinder Pal Singh Gill Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:16.05.2012

¶5

Rajinder Pal Singh Gill

¶6

.....petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & anr.

¶9

.....respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

¶13

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

¶14

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure(for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.129 dated 16.09.1995 under Section 307,325,326,324,323,148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga and the consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

¶15

The present one is another classic example of gross abuse of process of law. This is the third attempt in a row made by the petitioner for seeking quashing of this very FIR No.129 dated 16.09.1995. Earlier, he remained unsuccessful twice. However, he has mentioned the number of only the later petition and withheld the number of criminal misc. which was filed by him at the first instance.

¶16

The petition filed first in point of time by the petitioner was bearing Criminal Misc.No.3774-M of 2006 which came up for hearing before this Court on 20.01.2006 and after hearing, the following order was

¶17

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M)

¶18

¶19

passed:

¶20

Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate

¶21

The petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender. He is still in abroad. The offence is non-compoundable.

¶22

No ground is made out for quashing.

¶23

The petition is dismissed.

¶24

20.01.2006 sd(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge

¶25

The petition which was filed later was bearing Criminal Misc.No.26189-M of 2006 taking factually incorrect and misleading averment in para No.9 of the petition which reads as under:

¶26

That the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court with a same prayer vide Criminal Misc.No.3774-M of 2006 but since respondent No.2 was not impleaded as a party therefore the same was withdrawn.

¶27

The order dated 20.01.2006 passed by this Court, reproduced above, would show that the petition was not withdrawn but he same was dismissed after having found no ground for quashing. When the case was taken up for hearing on 04.05.2006, the following order was passed:

¶28

Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate

¶29

This is petition for quashing of FIR as

¶30

against the petitioner.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he never knew about the proceedings also. He is residing in a foreign country.

¶32

From the copy of order Annexure P-1

¶33

¶34

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M)

¶35

dated 04.05.1996, it appears that the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. From the evidence recorded during trial against other accused, it comes out that the material witnesses had turned hostile. The co-accused appear to have been acquitted.

¶36

Notice of motion to the respondent for

¶37

11.07.2006.

¶38

It is directed that if the petitioner puts in appearance before concerned Illaqa

¶39

Magistrate/SHO concerned Police Station and surrenders his passport then he shall be admitted to interim bail by that authority to its satisfaction.

¶40

On 11.07.2006, no body appeared on behalf of the petitioner

¶41

and the following order was passed:

¶42

Present: None for the petitioner

¶43

Mr.Narinder Kapur, AAG Punjab

¶44

A date is requested by State counsel. Put up on 8.9.2006.

¶45

If none comes present for the

¶46

petitioner to inform whether order dated 4.5.2006

¶47

has been complied or not, this petition shall be dismissed on the next date.

¶48

sd/July 11,2006 (M.M.Aggarwal) JUDGE

¶49

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M)

¶50

¶51

On the next date of hearing i.e.08.09.2006, learned counsel for

¶52

the parties appeared and the following order was passed:

¶53

Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate

¶54

Mr.G.S.Bhandari, DAG Punjab

¶55

Neither the petitioner nor respondentState is coming forward to inform whether petitioner had surrendered and had complied with order dated 4.5.2006 passed by this Court.

¶56

Let petitioner to positively state whether order dated 4.5.2006 has been complied with or not.

¶57

Put up on 14.09.2006.

¶58

On the next date of hearing i.e.14.09.2006, petitioner again

¶59

sought time for complying with the first order dated 04.05.2006 and on his request, following order was passed:

¶60

Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner

¶61

Mr.G.S.Bhardari, DAG Punjab

¶62

Counsel for the petitioner has

¶63

produced some documents received from Canada relating to Rajinder Pal Singh Gill petitioner and says that petitioner did not come to India due to illness of his mother and therefore, has not appeared/surrendered before the authorities.

¶64

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M)

¶65

¶66

Counsel for the petitioner says that petitioner will definitely put in appearance within one month.

¶67

Let petitioner to comply with the order of this Court dated 4.5.2006 within one month from today. If the same is not done, then this petition shall stand dismissed without any further hearing.

¶68

Put up on 17.10.2006 for checking of compliance report.

¶69

When the order dated 04.05.2006 was not complied with by the petitioner, learned counsel did not press the petition and it was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 17.10.2006, which reads as under:

¶70

Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate

¶71

Mr.G.S.Bhandari, Advocate

¶72

Counsel for the petitioner

¶73

states that order dated 4.5.2006 passed by this Court could not be complied with. He states that he does not press this petition.

¶74

Dismissed as not pressed at

¶75

this stage.

¶76

After keeping conveniently silent for more than five and half

¶77

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M) 6

¶78

years, petitioner made another attempt to mislead this Court. However, this time the petitioner was caught at the wrong foot, thanks to the computerization. While filing the present petition, the petitioner has again taken factually incorrect and misleading averment in para 14 of the petition, which reads as under:

¶79

That no such or similar petition except Crl.M.No.26189 of 2006 has earlier been filed in this Hon'ble Court or in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶80

The petitioner is completely silent about the first petition i.e.Criminal Misc.No.3774-M of 2006 which was dismissed on merit vide above said order dated 20.01.2006.

¶81

A bare combined reading of the above said orders passed by this Court would show that petitioner had been declared proclaimed offender as far back as on 04.05.1996 vide order Annexure P-1. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is running from the law for the last more than 16 long years. The petitioner is under this wrong impression that he can play with the system as and when he likes and in the manner he likes.

¶82

During the course of hearing, when confronted with the above said repeated dishonest attempts made by the petitioner for misusing the process of law, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to justify the action of the petitioner insisting that since the mother of the petitioner was not feeling well, he could not comply with order dated 04.05.2006 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.-M No.26189 of 2006. Although, it was also expected from the learned counsel for the petitioner that he ought to have inspected the record of both the above said petitions filed by the petitioner bearing Criminal Misc.No.3774-M of 2006 as well as Criminal Misc. No.26189-M of 2006 before filing the instant petition, yet the real fault lies with the petitioner himself.

¶83

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M)

¶84

¶85

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and giving my thoughtful consideration to the given fact situation of the present case, I unhesitatingly conclude that conduct of the petitioner is irresponsible and unbecoming. His repeated attempts are nothing less than playing a fraud with the justice delivery system. The petitioner is an unscrupulous and dishonest litigant . The instant petition is frivolous on the face of it and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶86

In view of the facts of the present case, the principle of suppressio veri; suggestio falsi is clearly attracted. “Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It was so quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu versus Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853, The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.7 of the judgment in Jagannath's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under;

¶87

The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bankloan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

¶88

Reverting to the present case, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean

¶89

¶90

Criminal Misc.M-No.14148 of 2012(O & M)

¶91

hands. He had made repeated attempts for misusing the process of law. Thus, respectfully following the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that present one is another example of glaring abuse of process of law. Such type of wholly unwarranted litigation is not only to be discouraged but also needs to be curbed with an iron hand so as to send a message for one and all that nobody should even think to play with the system of dispensation of justice. In the present case, the petitioner does not deserve any kind of sympathy from this Court.

¶92

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and also to prevent the abuse of process of law, the instant petition is dismissed with costs which are quantified at `.25,000/-.

¶93

It is directed that the petitioner shall deposit the costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, within three months. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the costs, Secretary of the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, shall apprise this Court so that further orders may be passed, if required.

¶94

Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed.

¶95

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶96

neenu

¶97

16.05.2012

Rajinder Pal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Pal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramandeep Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Navjot Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Tanu Bala & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Karamjeet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Pali Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.