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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANT PARKASH, J.
Rajesh Sharma and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and Others - Respondents
CRM-M No. 32129 of 2016 & CRM-M No. 22423 of 2017
Decided On : 22-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Mr. Divanshu Jain.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tanvir Joshi, AAG, Punjab.

The pendency of a civil suit does not bar the initiation of criminal proceedings when forgery has been alleged.

Headnote:

Forgery - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 406/467/468/471/120-B IPC - The court upheld the summoning of accused persons under the mentioned sections based on the allegations of forgery and criminal conspiracy. The court also cited the conditions for quashing criminal prosecution at the initial stage as per the Ch. Bhajan Lal and Som Mittal's cases.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute within a school society regarding the election of its members and the alleged forgery of entries in the minutes book. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused for criminal conspiracy and forgery.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused persons were prima facie guilty of the offences under Sections 406/467/468/471/120-B IPC and upheld the summoning of the accused. The court also dismissed the petitions, stating that the essential ingredients for quashing the criminal prosecution at the initial stage were lacking.

Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged criminal conspiracy, forgery, and the dispute over the election of society members. The accused argued that the matter should be adjudicated by the civil court and that the complaint was filed in the complainant's personal capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court cited the conditions for quashing criminal prosecution at the initial stage as per the Ch. Bhajan Lal and Som Mittal's cases. It also emphasized that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar the initiation of criminal proceedings when forgery has been alleged.

Final Decision: Both petitions were dismissed as they were devoid of merit, and the summoning of the accused persons was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Sant Parkash, J.

1. By way of this common judgment, I shall dispose of both the above-mentioned petitions.

2. Both the above-said petitions have been filed, challenging the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar in criminal complaint filed by Rajesh Sharma (petitioner in CRM-M-32129-2016), whereby Rajeev Kumaria, Sonia, Rahul Kumaria and Karan Kumaria (petitioners in CRM-M-22423-2017) have been summoned to face trial and the complaint qua respondents No.2 to 4 in CRM-M-32129-2016 was dismissed. The challenge has also been laid to orders dated 18.04.2017 as well as 04.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which revision petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed, while affirming the order dated 20.11.2015 (P-2)

3. Brief facts of the case are that Pandit Ram Nath (father of complainant-Rajesh Sharma) founded P.B.N. High School Society with a motive to educate the children. It was re-registered on 7.8.1981. As per the constitution of the Society, a person of the family of Pandit Baij Nath is to be appointed as Manager-cum-Ex-officio Secretary of the Society. On 05.01.1986, Dr. J.N. Kumaria, eldest grandson of Pandit Ram Nath, was appointed as the Manager-cum-Ex-officio Secretary of the Society as per the resolution passed by the Society. The complainant became President of the Society in the year 2004. In the annual meeting of the society held on 26.4.2014, complainant-Rajesh Sharma was re-elected as President, Gurkewal Singh Dhillon was re-elected as Financial Secretary and Dr. J.N. Kumaria continued to be as Manager-cum-Ex-officio Secretary of the society. Accused-Rajeev Kumaria, who is younger brother of Dr. J.N. Kumaria, is a member of the Society and Principal of PBN School; accused-Sonia is wife of Rajeev Kumaria, whereas accused-Rahul Kumaria and accused-Karan Kumaria are their sons. Preeti (respondent No.3 in CRM-M-32129-2016) is fiancée of Rahul Kumaria; respondent No.2-Mona Bhatti is mother of Preeti and respondent No.4-Gurmeet Singh is a close associate of accused-Rajeev Kumaria and Mona Bhatti. The meetings are to be convened by the Manager-cum-Ex-officio Secretary of the society and the proceedings are to be entered in the “Minutes Book”, which is to be kept by the Manager-cum-Ex officio Secretary, who is only authorized to record the proceedings.

4. Dr. J.N. Kumaria entrusted the Minutes Book to Rajeev Kumaria as the same was required to be produced in the court regularly in a civil suit filed by the complainant against Inderjit Singh, who wanted to become the President of the Society. On 26.4.2014, a resolution was passed in the presence of accused Rajeev Kumaria and Sonia that the said minutes book would be returned by Rajeev Kumaria to Dr. J.N. Kumaria as and when demanded and it was also resolved that entries in the minutes book were to be added by Dr. J.N. Kumaria only. However, petitioner-Rajeev Kumaria refused to return the said minutes book when demanded.

5. On 25.4.2015, annual meeting of the society was convened, which was presided over by the complainant. Rajesh Sharma-complainant was re-elected as President of the Society but accused Rajeev Kumaria and Sonia refused to sign the proceedings. A sub-committee was constituted to take the necessary action for recovery of original minutes book. The complainant on behalf of the Society filed a civil litigation. It is stated that accused-Rajeev Kumaria in furtherance of his criminal conspiracy allegedly forged an ante dated entry of 31.05.2014 in the minutes book to the effect that he shall discharge the function of Manager-cum-Ex-officio Secretary of the Society as Dr. J.N. Kumaria was living at a distant place and incorporated the name of Rahul Kumaria as a member in place of Kharaiti Ram (since deceased). He is also alleged to have forged another entry incorporating the name of his son Karan Kumaria in place of Inderjit Sood. When the complainant left with no other o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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