JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Petitioners in the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of the complaint No.23 of 2009 dated 20.02.2009 (Annexure P-7) titled “Balwant Singh Khera Vs. Sukhbir Singh Badal and others” filed under Sections 463,465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 191, 192 of IPC, 1860 and impugned summoning order dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure P-19) passed by ACJM, Hoshiarpur summoning the petitioners under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. A perusal of the paperbook and the record would go on to show that initially a complaint was filed against Sukhbir Singh Badal (petitioner No.3), Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Surinder Singh Shinda and Dr.Daljit Singh Cheema (petitioner No.1) on 20.02.2009 (Annexure P-7) Petitioner No.2, Prakash Singh Badal, father of Sukhbir Singh Badal was not arrayed as respondent-accused. The gamut of allegations in the complaint was that Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) was functioning at both State and national level and the SAD (Badal) had become a larger faction of the said party. It is claimed that the party was engaged in religious activities which were not secular as it was also contesting and winning the elections of the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) which was the Apex Jurist Body of the Sikhs and also for the Delhi Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. Petitioner No.2, Shri Parkash Singh Badal had given undertaking that they would abide by the principles of secularism. All the 4 original accused, in order to seek registration of SAD headed by Shri Prakash Singh Badal being the President, gave an undertaking that it would bear allegiance to the principles of secularism with the Election Commission of India. Thereafter, the Election Commission of India had registered it as a political party and allotted its symbol “Traju”. The copy of the undertaking given to the Election Commission of India was attached as Annexure C-2. Shri Prakash Singh Badal, being the President, had also submitted a constitution (Annexure C-1) with the Gurudwara Election Commission in conformity and on the lines of Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925 which had different set of eligibility criteria for membership and he had also filed an affidavit in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of India and the 1951 Act. Thus, both the undertakings, one with the Gurudrawa Election Commission and another with Election Commission of India were stated to be contrary to each other. The one filed with the Election Commission of India was to fulfill the constitutional mandate, as per the provisions of Section 29-A(5) of the 1951 Act by intensively projecting a secular image but the one filed with the Gurudwara Election Commission, was violating the very conditions of secularism by restricted membership along religious lines. The wrongful intention was, thus, attributed and they had stated to have made false statement to the knowledge of the accused and they had committed serious criminal offences and made themselves liable to be prosecuted since the Election Commission of India had granted them recognition on the said basis. Resultantly, prosecution was launched under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 191 & 192 IPC.

3. Initially, the concerned Clerks of the Election Commission of India and the Gurudwara Election Commission were summoned. Petitioner No.1 was also sought to be summoned as a witness to produce the concerned documents which order was set aside by this Court in CRM-M-28841-2014 on 11.12.2015 (Annexure P-10). One Charanjit Singh Brar was summoned wherein he had brought the record of the SAD including the Resolution dated 03.03.2000 and the copy of the amended Constitution dated 26.05.2004 which was adopted on 13.06.2004. Resultantly, an application for amendment dated 28.04.2017 came to be filed wherein apart from the 4 accused, 5 more persons were sought to be arrayed as accused and Section 120-B IPC was also sought to be added.

4.