Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 1466
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Rajinder Kumar Chhibbar
Versus
Aseem Bakshi
Criminal MISCELLANEOUS No. 5106 of 2004,
Decided On : APRIL 5, 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complaint and the summoning order were liable to be quashed as the allegations did not make out the alleged offences, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings was not in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Quashing of complaint - Sections 420/511/468/471 and 182 I.P.C. - [Sections 420/511/468/471 and 182 I.P.C.] - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 182 I.P.C. and Section 420 read with Section 511 I.P.C. The court highlighted the legal bar against the institution or continuation of the proceedings under Section 195(1) of the Code and the requirement of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate for prosecution under Section 182 I.P.C. The court also emphasized that the complaint and the supporting evidence did not disclose any offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 I.P.C. and that continuation of the criminal proceedings was not in the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of a complaint and a summoning order. The complaint alleged that the petitioner made false representations in an application for transfer of property, depriving the complainant and his brother from inheriting the property left by their grandfather. The summoning order was passed under Sections 420/511 I.P.C. and Section 182 I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint and the summoning order were liable to be quashed as the allegations did not make out the alleged offences. The court also noted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was not in the interest of justice, considering the pending civil suits between the parties regarding the property in question.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged false representations made by the petitioner in an application for transfer of property, the legal bar against the institution or continuation of the proceedings under Section 195(1) of the Code, and the requirement of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate for prosecution under Section 182 I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint and the summoning order were liable to be quashed as the allegations did not make out the alleged offences. The court also emphasized that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was not in the interest of justice, considering the pending civil suits between the parties regarding the property in question.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the complaint and the summoning order were set aside.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing of the complaint dated 28.2.2001, Annexure P-1, filed by the respondent, who is his nephew, against him under Sections 420/511/468/471 and 182 I.P.C.; and the summoning order dated 7.10.2001, Annexure P-4, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 511 and Section 182 I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that late Sh. Bakhshi Mulak Raj Chhibbar, who was a practicing Advocate, was owner of two houses i.e. houses No. 681 and 721, Sector 8, Chandigarh. He died on 5.4.1974 leaving behind three sons, namely Rajinder Kumar Chhibbar (petitioner), Surinder Kumar Chhibbar (father of respondent) and Raj Bakhshi and four daughters. During his life time, Sh. Bakhshi Mulak Raj Chhibbar executed a registered Will dated 17.1.1972, whereby he bequeathed house No. 681, Sector 8, Chandigarh, in favour of the petitioner. He was also given a right to continue to reside in the ground floor of house No. 721, Sector 8, Chandigarh, as he has been practicing there as an Advocate. The other two sons, namely Surinder Kumar Bakhshi and Raj Bakhshi were given life interest in house No. 721, but they were not given right to alien-ate this house by sale, mortgage or any other device. They were given right to live on the first floor in the house during their life time only and after their death, the house was to be inherited by their progeny, in case they marry and have their children. Otherwise, the house was to be inherited by the petitioner or his children in case he is not living then. As per the Will, the petitioner was given a right to continue to reside in the ground floor of house No. 721, as he had been practicing there as an Advocate. However, under the Will, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 200/- per month to each of the two brothers by way of rent. At the time of execution of the Will, Surinder Kumar Bakhshi and Raj Bakhshi were unmarried, but subsequently, Surinder Kumar Bakhshi had married and is having two sons, namely Assem Bakhshi and Ashish Bakhshi. However, Raj Bakhshi is issueless.
3. Vide order dated 25.3.1980, passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, the aforesaid Will was duly probated. According to the said Will, House No. 681, Sector 8, Chandigarh, has already been transferred in the name of the petitioner. On 9.9.1999, the petitioner made an application to the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh for transfer of ground floor of house No. 721, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh in his favour and first floor of the said house in favour of his brothers Surinder Kumar Bakhshi and Raj Bakhshi. The said application is re-produced below:
To Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. Sub: Transfer of House No. 721, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh N.523-A (Old No.) Plot No. 8, Street D, Chandigarh. Sir, My father Bakshi Mulak Raj Chhibbar was the owner of above house, who died on 5.4.1974. That my father executed a Will dated 17.1.1972. Will was probated in the court of Distt. Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 25.3.1980. Certified copy of the Will Fx.P-1 dated 17.1.1972 and the typed copy of the said Will duly attested to be true copy of the Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh are enclosed. The Will inter alia provide as under: I give house No. 681 to my second son Rajinder Chhibbar. My son Rajinder Chhibbar will have right to continue to reside in the Ground Floor of House No. 721 as he has been practicing here as an advocate. He had his office and residence here. In the interest of his profession he needs the Ground Floor for residence and his office.
My eldest brother Surinder Bakhsni and youngest brother Raj Bakhshi have been given life interest only on the first floor of House No. 721, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh and they have a right to live during their life only. I am enclosing an affidavit
