Decided on January 08,1965

Uf, I.C.S. Appellant

Referred Judgements :-



Gyanendra Kumar, J. - (1.)THIS is an application Under Section 476 of Code of Criminal Procedure by R.P. Kapur, I. C. S. who was previously Commissioner of Ambala Division against Pratap Singh Kairon, former Chief Minister of Punjab.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to this case are that one Madan Lal Sethi, Advocate of Chandigarh, had lodged a FIR against the applicant and his mother in law Kaushalya Devi on the allegations that in the beginning of 1958, it was represented to him by the applicant that his mother -in -law Kaushalya Devi owned a piece of land in village Mohammadpur Munirka situate on the outskirts of Delhi and had a right to sell the same. In pursuance of that representation, Kaushalya Devi executed a sale deed in favour of the wife of Madan Lal Sethi. The sale consideration of Rs. 20,000 was paid by Sethi by means of two cheques of Rs. 10,000 each. Later on, he found that he had been cheated by R.P. Kapur and or his mother -in law Kaushalya Devi, inasmuch as none of them was the owner of the land which had already been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the fact that R.P. Kapur was a senior Officer of the Government, the matter was referred to the Chief Minister, who by his order dated 16.7.1959 directed the prosecution of the applicant. In consequence R.P. Kapur was suspended and arrested along with his mother -in -law. The criminal case started against R. P. Kapur and Kaushalya Devi in July, 1959, in the court of the Addl. Distt. Magistrate, Ambala. But on the application, of R. P. Kapur the case was transferred by the Supreme Court to the court of the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (J), Saharanpur, who on 17.6.1961 framed charges against the said accused Under Sections 120B and 4/0 of the Indian Pinal Code. Against that order, the accused persons instituted Cr. Rev. No. 1402 of 1962 in this Court which was allowed by us by our order dated 10.12.1962, on the finding that there was no ground for presuming that the said accused had committed any offence of cheating or conspiracy to cheat, and they were, therefore, entitled to discharge in accordance with the provisions of Clause (2) of Section 251A of Code of Criminal Procedure. R.P. Kapur has now filed this application dated 1.1.1963 Under Section 476 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer that an enquiry by a first class Magistrate be ordered for the prosecution of the opposite party Under Sections 193, 195, 196, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Pinal Code.
The case of the applicant, in brief, is that Madan Lal Sethi, Advocate, had lodged the FIR on 10.12.1958 with the Inspector General of Police, Punjab and had handed over its copy to the Secretary to the Chief Minister, but the version of facts contained in the said report did not make out a criminal case against the applicant and his mother in law, with the result that the said report was made to disappear and was replaced by another so called FIR, which was registered on 23.12.1958. It is further alleged that the opposite party was displeased with the applicant and had ill will against him, and in order to cause him injury, the opposite party was inspired to bring about his false prosecution and arrest, knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for the same.

(3.)WE decided to hold a preliminary enquiry in the matter and issued notice to the opposite party, who has denied the allegations made against him and has filed his own affidavit in reply, saying that Sethi had not handed over to him or in his office any FIR or complaint on 10.12.1958. It is further contended that Madan Lal Sethi had also not lodged any FIR with the I. G. of Police on 10.12.1958, but it was handed over to the Addl. I.G. of Police sometime between 13th and 22nd December, 1958 which was registered on 23.12.1958. The case of the opposite party further is that there was no original FIR apart from the carbon copy dated 10.12.195S which was brought on the record of the trial court ; so there was no question of its replacement by another report. The opposite party also averred that he did not bear any malice or ill -will towards the applicant and had acted bonafide in ordering his prosecution, inasmuch as the Legal Remembrancer, Punjab, had opined that a prima facie criminal case had been made out against the applicant.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.