The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 340 Cr.P.C. in relation to the petitioner's complaint and the cancellation report, and the court's authority to set aside summoning orders and direct inquiries under this provision.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J

1. Present petition has been filed by Kuldip Singh. He is aggrieved that in the complaint filed by him, the trial Court had only issued summons against Karnial Singh and Bhag Singh.

2. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed a revision petition. The same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 26th February, 2007. Petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No. 15853-M of 2007 in this Court and assailed the order of summoning and the order passed by the revisional Court. In the petition so filed, the matter was remanded back to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala to decide the revision petition afresh on merits. Revision petition was decided on 8th September, 2008. The revisional Court, along with two accused already summoned, also ordered summoning of accused Karnail Singh son of Kartar Singh and Sawinder Singh son of Uttam Singh.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved that the respondent No.1 to 6, who were arrayed as accused No.2, 3 and 6 to 9 have not been summoned by the trial Court and the revisional Court has also not accepted his prayer of summoning respondent No.1 to 6.

4. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that he had filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount. He succeeded in the suit. Consequently, the property was ordered to be attached and after the orders of attachment were pronounced, the accused had sold the property, hence offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.

5. Case of the petitioner is that he had earlier lodged an FIR at Police Station Sadar, Patiala on 8th December, 2000 under Section 420, 120-B IPC. The police had filed cancellation report. Therefore, petitioner was compelled to file the complaint.

6. An important question has arisen for consideration of this Court as to whether, where a property has been attached by the Court complying with the due process of law, can accused be permitted to sell the property and go scot-free.

7. Mr. Parminder Singh appearing for the petitioner has stated that in the present case, offence will be made out under Section 206 IPC. If it is accepted that offence is made out under Section 206 IPC, then there is a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of the offence. Since the property was attached by the Court, it is that Court only, which can take any action. Therefore, petitioner has to file an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

8. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been agitating his grievance in the wrong forum, therefore, the FIR lodged and the cancellation report submitted and also the complaint filed are to be treated as an application by the concerned Court for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

9. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that this has not been brought to the notice of this Court that earlier a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

Commission of a penal offence and contempt of Court are entirely in different domain. Initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts will not oust the petitioner from taking the offenders to task under the penal provisions.

10. It has further been submitted by counsel for the respondents that order of attachment was not noticed in the revenue record and in the jamabandi obtained by the respondents. Therefore, respondents were not aware of any attachment order.

11. To controvert this, Mr. Parminder Singh ahs submitted that the respondents had the knowledge of the attachment of the property.

12. Whether respondents were aware regarding the order of attachment or not, is a question of fact, which can not be examined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, taking the larger interest in view, it is ordered that the complaint filed and the cancellation report submitted in the FIR, shall be treated as an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. They shall be placed before the Court, which had ordered attachme