BAGH SINGH Vs. IQBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P2 and the summoning order dated 15-5-1995, copy Annexure P3, passed by the learned Magistrate ordering summoning of the present petitioners as accused for the offences under Sections 182, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120 read with Section 120-B, IPC in the criminal complaint filed by complainant respondent Iqbal Singh, to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) In the petition it was alleged by the accused-petitioners that Balwinder Singh, petitioner No. 2, lodged FIR No. 48 dated 28-6-1992 under Sections 336, 379, 447, 148, 149 IPC, in PS Kot Bhai, Distt. Faridkot, against Gurcharan Singh and 4 others, including complainant respondent Iqbal Singh. It was alleged that accused in the said FIR were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, for the offences under Sections 148, 452, 395 IPC but all the accused in the said FIR were acquitted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10-2-1995, copy Annexure PI. It was alleged that while acquitting the accused in the said FIR, learned Addl. Sessions Judge had made a reference that the receipt Exhibit P8 produced by Balwinder Singh, during investigation in the said case, arising out of the said FIR, was fabricated. It was alleged that without filing any application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the present petitioners about the said receipt, being forged, complainant respondent namely Iqbal Singh filed criminal complaint, copy Annexure P2, in the court of Judicial Magistrate and after recording preliminary evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 15-5-1995, copy Annexure P3, ordered summoning of the petitioners besides ASI Gurpal Singh (who had investigated the case arising out the aforesaid FIR), as accused for the aforesaid offences. It was alleged that under Section 195(1)(a)(i), Cr.P.C. (wrongly mentioned as IPC), no court could take cognizance of any offence which would be under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. It was further alleged that under Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C., no court could take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 461, 475 or 476 IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, except on the complaint in writing of that court. It was alleged that since the aforesaid receipt in question was produced before the I.O. and used as evidence in the court during trial of the criminal case, the prosecution except on the complaint of the court concerned was not maintainable. It was accordingly prayed that the criminal complaint, summoning order and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon be quashed.

(3.) In the written reply filed by complainant-respondent Iqbal Singh, it was alleged that the present petition was not maintainable in this court. It was alleged that Balwinder Singh, petitioner had lodged a false FIR against the complainant-respondent and that he was rightly acquitted by the Addl. Sessions Judge. It was alleged that the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. were not applicable to the present case. It was alleged that provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) and 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., were not applicable to the facts of the present case, as there is nothing to show that the alleged forgery was committed while the document was in the custody of the court. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed.