Dismissed

Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2014CRM-M/12171/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR for forgery and theft alleging it was retaliatory for a pending industrial dispute award. The Court held the FIR registered independently based on document tampering and dismissal was not an abuse of process. Trial court remanded for expedited disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no stay on investigation/trial; trial court directed to expedite disposal.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-12171 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: February 10, 2014

Pardeep Kumar

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta

¶10

Present: Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Kler, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Surinder Gupta, J

¶12

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR No.131 dated 15.7.2011 registered for offence under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Patiala.

¶13

The FIR was registered on the complaint by the office of Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner Pardeep Kumar was informer of the Excise & Taxation Department. He had been providing information about the tax evaders and under the Government Policy getting the reward amount. He tempered with the official record by forging his signatures in the log books of the Government vehicles in a single day at one time with the same pen. He appended his signatures over the diesel and petrol bills, by stealing the same. An enquiry was got conducted by the department and vide enquiry report Annexure R-3 the tempering of the official record came to the notice of the department.

¶14

On the complaint, the police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. It has been submitted by the learned State counsel that challan Kumar Deepak 2014.02.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. M-12171 of 2013 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

¶18

has been presented against the petitioner and one Mani Ram, who connived with the petitioner in tempering with the Government record and offence of commission of forgery.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that services of the petitioner were terminated on 17.6.1999 and he was served a demand notice dated 2.4.2003 on which reference was made to the Labour Courtcum-Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred as, 'the Tribunal'). In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner asked for certain documents which were not produced by the department and ultimately award was passed on 22.8.2012 in favour of the petitioner. He was ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service. As a counter blast, the department has got recorded the FIR against the petitioner. It has been argued that the FIR has been got registered after about 10-11 years of service of demand notice dated 2.4.2003 raising industrial dispute. In the enquiry conducted by the department the petitioner was never associated. The respondent No.2 has indulged in misuse of the process of law to counter the award passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

Learned State counsel has argued that the FIR was registered by the police and after investigation, a prima facie case for offence under Sections 379/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC was found against the petitioner and challan has been presented in the court on 4.6.2012 which is pending for framing of charge. In the investigation, it has been found that the petitioner tempered with the official record. He signed the diesel and petrol bills by stealing the same from the official record. It was found that

¶21

the petitioner was informer of the Excise Department and was getting Kumar Deepak 2014.02.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-12171 of 2013 (O&M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

¶25

reward amount for giving information of the tax evaders under the scheme of the State Government. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that pleas as raised in the petition are available to the petitioner before the trial court where the case is fixed for framing of charge and the other accused Mani Ram has not come up with any petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

¶26

The respondent No.2 while reiterating the allegations levelled in the FIR, has submitted in its reply that in enquiry it was found that the petitioner was never appointed as Driver in the office of the complainant and no salary was ever paid to him. The log books do not require the signatures of the driver. The petitioner signed the log books and the bills of petrol and diesel after stealing the same. His signatures were over lapping on the pass order with red ink. All this was done by the petitioner in connivance with the Nazir Branch of Deputy Controller. The award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner is under challenge in the writ petition pending in this Court.

¶27

On perusal of the paper book it transpires that the FIR has been got registered against the petitioner with the allegations that he was informer of the Excise & Taxation Department. In lieu of giving information of the tax evaders, he had been getting reward amount under the Government Policy. However, he later claimed himself to be a driver of the complainant department and raised the dispute before the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was during the pendency of that case the petitioner asked for certain documents. The department made enquiries. The report of the department enquiry revealed as follows :-

¶28

Kumar Deepak 2014.02.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-12171 of 2013 (O&M)

¶30

-4-

¶31

¶32

“1. No appointment as driver given to Pardeep Kumar for 5.8.98 to 16.6.98.

¶33

2. No duty to drive any vehicle given to him.

¶34

3. No salary given to him.

¶35

4. His reward as informer not given for this period.

¶36

5. Signatures of driver on log book not required.

¶37

6. Bills of petrol & repair were signed by Pardeep Kumar after stealing them. This is proved by Bill No.461, 405 & 761 (examined as above). Blue ink signatures planted on red ink pass orders are visible to naked eyes. App. Police action may be taken against him and the officials in connivance (Nazir Branch of DCFA).

¶38

7. Similarly, log books are signed at a single stroke on a single day after stealing them. Blank ink signatures of Pardeep Kumar in one pen are not routine or regular, not natural.

¶39

All evidence manufactured fake to defraud the Govt.”

¶40

It was also found during enquiry that amount of `1,84,000/- as

¶41

reward of informer was paid to the petitioner on 5.5.2001. On the basis of this report, FIR was got registered, vide letter dated 17.2.2011 i.e. before the award of the Tribunal dated 22.8.2012.

¶42

Major stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the point that the award passed by the Tribunal clearly signifies that the petitioner was posted as driver and the department has withheld the documents called by the petitioner in the court. The FIR got registered against the petitioner is a counter blast to the award passed in his favour.

¶43

The award was passed by the Tribunal on 22.8.2012 while the

¶44

FIR was got registered on 15.7.2011 i.e. much prior to the passing of the

¶45

award. There, as such, is no basis for the argument that this FIR has been Kumar Deepak 2014.02.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

Crl. Misc. No. M-12171 of 2013 (O&M)

¶47

-5-

¶48

¶49

got registered against the petitioner to nullify the award passed in his favour. The entire case is based on the documentary evidence. The role of respondent No.2 is only to give information to the police. The matter has been investigated by the police and after investigation, challan has been presented in the court. The case is still stated to be pending for framing of charge. It is no where the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the challan presented in the court is not supported by any evidence. The mere fact that the matter was reported after about 10 or 11 years of the initiation of the proceedings by the petitioner before the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act and that some observation has been made in favour of the petitioner by the Tribunal is no reason to seek the quashing of the FIR. The matter in the FIR is altogether distinct and separate. It relates to the stealing of documents; forging of documents; and using the forged documents as genuine. The mere fact that the petitioner has been litigating with his department, is no reason to quash the FIR.

¶50

In the instant case, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, the FIR is not to be examined at this stage. The same can be looked into by the trial court at appropriate stage. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be invoked to do real and substantial justice and to prevent abuse of process of court in order to secure ends of justice. No ground whatsoever is made out to invoke inherent power of this Court to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner.

¶51

There are no merits in this petition and the same is dismissed. It is made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be

¶52

taken as expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the petitioner Kumar Deepak 2014.02.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

Crl. Misc. No. M-12171 of 2013 (O&M)

¶54

-6-

¶55

¶56

shall be at liberty to raise all the legal plea available to him at the time of framing of charge. The challan was presented in this case on 4.6.2012, the trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the case as the same is stated to be pending at the initial stage.

¶57

February 10, 2014 deepak

¶58

(Surinder Gupta) Judge

¶59

Kumar Deepak 2014.02.22 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employees State Insurance Vs Parminder

Arjun Yadav Vs State of Haryana

Jyoti and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mayank Jogi and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

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

Kuldeep Singh Vs Kulbir Kaur