Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 434
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal - Appellant
Versus
Balwant Singh Khera and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7872 of 2021)
With
Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema – Appellant
Versus
Balwant Singh Khera and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8257 of 2021)
And
Shri Parkash Singh Badal - Appellant
Versus
Balwant Singh Khera and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1117 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7950 of 2021)
Decided on : 28-04-2023
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Adv. Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Adv. Mr. Virinder Pal Singh Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Aditi Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Adv. Ms. Niharika Karanjawala, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gudipati Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Sanya Dua, Adv. Mr. Yash Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rose Verma, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Indira Unninayar, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) For offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to public or to any person.
(2) Making a false claim and creating and producing false document both are different and distinct.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B – Representation of People Act, 1951 – Section 29-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Filing of false affidavit with Election Commission of India – Cheating and forgery – Summoning order – For offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to public or to any person – Making false documents is sine qua non – In present case, no false document has been produced. What was produced was the Memorandum and no other documents were produced – Making a false claim and creating and producing false document both are different and distinct – Looking to averments and allegations in complaint and even material/evidence collected/recorded during course of inquiry and even assuming complaint’s averments to be true, ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 are not at all made out – Even assuming complaint’s averments to be true, do not make out ingredients of offences for which Trial Court has passed summoning order – To continue criminal proceedings against appellants-accused arising out of complaint and to face trial by accused as per summoning order is nothing but abuse of process of law – This is a fit case to quash entire criminal proceedings – Order passed by Trial Court summoning appellants-accused to face trial hereby quashed and set aside. (Paras 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with summoning order, the appellants herein preferred the present application before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order dated 04.11.2019. By impugned judgment and order, High Court has dismissed the said application and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings as well as the summoning order. Hence, present appeals.
Findings of Court:
Even application under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 was made as far as back in the year 1989 and thereafter even the respondent No. 1 filed the complaint before the ECI, which came to be dismissed by the ECI and thereafter the present complaint has been filed in the year 2009, i.e., after a period of 20 years from the date of filing of the application for registration under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951, which was made in year 1989.
Present order shall not affect pending proceedings before High Court of Delhi, which is reported to be pending against the order passed by the ECI.
Result : Appeals allowed with observations.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 54161 of 2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the said application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed and set aside the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the appellants herein – original writ petitioners under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC and other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, the original accused – appellants herein have preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 Initially, a private complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein – original complainant before the learned ACJM, Hoshiarpur being Complaint No. 23 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 191, 192 of IPC, 1860 against Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal, Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Shri Surinder Singh Shinda and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time, Shri Parkash Singh Badal, one of the accused now, was not arrayed as an accused.
2.2 It was alleged in the complaint that while complying with the requirements of Section 29-A(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1951”), an affidavit was filed in the shape of an undertaking with the Election Commission of India (ECI), which conflicted with the affidavit/undertaking given to the Gurudwara Election Commission (GEC).
2.3 It was alleged that the said affidavit was sworn by Shri Parkash Singh Badal, the then President, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) stating that the Party was adhering to the principle of secularism. Under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, only Sikhs can become voters or contest elections to Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC). That this restricts membership along religious lines and cannot said to be secular. It was alleged that the Constitution submitted to GEC in conformity with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 is contrary to the one submitted to ECI as it shows that the Party is engaged in religious activities while giving an undertaking to ECI that it shall bear allegiance to the principles of secularism. That the SAD had no right to function as a political party as its office bearers are non-secular. Therefore, the SAD has filed a false Constitution with ECI to gain recognition as a political party.
2.4 That the learned Trial Court held the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses. The original complainant filed an application before the learned Trial Court with a prayer that Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema be summoned as witnesses and asked to produce the documents asked for. It was further submitted that the complainant does not want to pursue the complaint against them and their names be stuck down from the title of the complaint. 2.5 The said application was filed on 06.04.2011. By order dated 26.08.2011, the learned Trial Court ordered the aforesaid two persons to be summoned as witnesses along with the record. That the primary revision application before the first revisional court – learned Sessions Court came to be dismissed observing that the revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order and that no order has been passed by the learned Trial Court on the application dated 06.04.2011 of the complainant as regards not pursuing the complaint against them. That the complainant again filed an application dated 04.07.2014 before the learned Trial Court in Complaint No. 23 of 2009 submitting that he does not want to pursue the application dated 06.04.2011.
2.6 The second application dated 06.08.2014 filed by the appellants herein -original writ petitioners under Section 315(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.P.C. before the learned ACJM came to be dismissed. The appellants herein filed revision application befor
