SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 609

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
Chaman Lal & Others
Versus
State of Punjab & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2003
Decided On : 31-03-2009

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellants:U.U. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Aloke K. Sengupta, Mrinal K. Mandal, S. Mukherjee, D. Samanta, Anupam Lal Das, Advocates. For the Respondents:Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, Sanjay Katyal, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 482 CrPC is not the stage to challenge charges. Charges can be challenged at the trial.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Charges framed – High Court refusing to quash the charges observing that the prosecution to succeed the charges will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – The appellant can make the challenges at that stage – Proceeding u/s 482 is not the stage to make challenges to charges – No infirmity. (Para 11)

       Facts of the case:

       Charges were framed against the appellants for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 409 read with Section 120B and Section 420 read with Section 120 B IPC.

       The appellants preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court which has been dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision i.e. Criminal Revision No.512 of 2000 filed by nine petitioners, who are the appellants in this Appeal. Before the High Court the challenge was to the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana framing charges for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 409 read with Section 120B and Section 420 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC). The High Court dismissed the revision petition on the ground that there are sufficient grounds to presume that the unrebutted evidences of the complainant constitute triable offences.

2. Background facts as projected by appellants in a nutshell are as follows:

In February, 1987 the complainant and his five family members executed General Power of Attorney (in short the ‘GPA) at Canada in favour of Manvinder Singh and subsequently the said GPA was registered with the Commissioner of Ferozepur, Punjab. The GPA stated that the GPA holder can do anything on behalf of the complainant which he can lawfully do. The GPA does not contain any condition or restriction.

In August, 1989 the GPA holder met the appellants with a proposal to sell a plot of land of the complainant admeasuring 4840 square yards comprised in Khasra No. 1085 situated at Village Barewal Awana, Ludhiana. The GPA holder demanded a price of Rs.5 lakhs for the said property.

On 4.10.1989 the appellants by an oral agreement-agreed to purchase the said property and paid Rs.1 lakh by way of four demand drafts to the GPA holder.

On 7.11.1989 the aforesaid oral agreement was reduced into writing and the balance sum of Rs.4 lakh was also paid (Rs.1 lakh in cash and Rs.3 lakhs by bank drafts). Upon receipt of entire consideration, the GPA holder executed four SPAs in favour of appellant Nos.1 (Chaman Lal) 2 (Daljander Kaur) 3 (Narinder Kaur) and 7 (Balwant Singh).

On 5.12.1989 by virtue of the aforesaid 5 SPAs dated 7.11.1989 appellant Nos.1, 2, 3 & 7 executed and registered 5 sale deeds in favour of appellant Nos.2 to 6.

In the middle of December, 1989 the appellants suddenly came to know that the complainant had filed a suit No.120/89 dated 28.11.1989 against Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 for declaration that the said GPA holder (Manvinder Singh) had no authority to sell the said property and/or to permanently alienate and dispose of the said property.

The appellants also came to know that in the said suit for declaration, an ex-parte injunction order/status quo was granted on 02.12.1989, though the appellants in the absence of knowledge- of such ex-parte injunction order had already executed the sale-deeds and got them registered on 05.12.1989.

On 14.06.1990 the learned Senior Subordinate Judge passed an order in the aforesaid suit, restraining the appellants from dispossessing the complainant from the said property and to maintain status quo with regard to ownership of the said property pending disposal of the suit, whereas in fact the appellants were already in possession of the said property since 07.11.1989.

On 20.8.1990 and 21.11.1990 the appellants preferred an Appeal No. 274/67 in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana praying, inter alia, to maintain the status quo with regard to the ownership and possession of the said property and vide order dated 21.11.1990, the parties were ordered, during pendency of the main suit, to maintain status quo with regard to ownership and possession of the property.

On 30.6.1995 the complainant lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana - Shri S.S. Channi, I.A.S., who summoned the appellants at his residence and asked them to cancel the sale-deeds and concede to the claim of the complainant in the civil suit. The Commissioner also threatened the appellants with dire consequences by implicating them in false crimina

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top