Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Prabhjot Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-43344-2018
Decided On : 17-10-2022
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Orders - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders allowing his summoning as an additional accused in a case involving misuse of bank accounts. The petitioner, a bank manager, was implicated based on witness testimonies and an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner and that the petitioner had no specific inculpatory role. The Court also highlighted the principles for allowing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and found that the summoning lacked strong and cogent evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the misuse of bank accounts and the validity of the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and found that the summoning lacked such evidence in the petitioner's case.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the summoning orders and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner only.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral) - The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the orders dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajpura, whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner as an additional accused in FIR No.267 dated 11.10.2021 has been allowed and the order in revision of the learned Additional Sessions, Patiala dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-2) whereby the said order (Annexure P-1) has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Bansi Lal complainant/respondent No.2 father of Paras Gera filed a complaint before the police authorities including IG Zone-1, Patiala. Briefly stated the sum and substance of the complaint by Bansi Lal was that he wanted to send his son Paras Gera to England and he therefore wanted to open a bank account. For that reason he met Maneet Singh Bindra resident of Panchkula. Thereafter Maneet Singh Bindra sent one person with Bansi Lal and Paras Gera to Rajpura from Panchkula. Thereafter an account was duly opened in Axis Bank Rajpura. Maneet Singh Bindra had thereafter took the complete cheque book of the account at Rajpura after getting the same signed from Paras Gera. Thereafter Maneet Singh Bindra got deposited a sum of Rs.7 lacs in the account of Paras Gera who then went to England. Subsequently Maneet Singh Bindra took out all the money from the account of Paras Gera. Maneet Singh Bindra thereafter also kept on getting amount deposited in the accounts of Paras Gera from Australia and he used to withdraw it through cheques which were given by Paras Gera. The account of Paras Gera had been misused by Maneet Singh Bindra and then Maneet Singh Bindra had returned two cheques back to Bansi Lal. A case was sought to be registered against Maneet Singh Bindra for misusing the cheques of Paras Gera. The original complaint is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the petition.
3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, whereby the petitioner is not named, an investigation was conducted and during the course of investigation, the names of three other accused namely, Sunil Jaggi, Director of Oscan Consultant India Ltd., Prabhjot Singh (the petitioner) and Tejinder Singh were added.
4. The petitioner was arrested and after being in custody for about 02 months was granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2011 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, vide a detailed inquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police (D), Patiala the petitioner was found to be innocent. The copy of the inquiry report dated 25.12.2011 is annexed as Annexure P-6 to the petition. Pursuant thereto, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against Maneet Singh Bindra and Tejinder Singh. Sunil Jaggi was also found to be liable but the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was not submitted against him because by that time he could not be arrested. The copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is annexed as Annexure P-5 to the petition.
5. After the presentation of the challan as aforesaid, the prosecution evidence began and Kamaldeep Batra was examined as PW-1, who was the Operations Manager Axis Bank, Rajpura Branch and who had dealt with the cheques of Para Gera and got the same encashed. Thereafter, the complainant-Bansi Lal was examined as PW-2, aggrieved persons Puneet Kumar Sharma and Gurjant Singh as PW-3 and PW-4 and pursuant thereto, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on 14.03.2018 by the P.P. to summon Sunil Jaggi, Director Oscan Consultant India Ltd. and Prabhjot Singh (the petitioner), Manager Axis Bank. As per the said application, since PW2-complainant Bansi Lal, PW3-Puneet Kumar Sharma and PW4-Gurjant Singh had stated in their examination-in-chief that the above-said accused had also actively participated in the commission of offence, they ought to be summoned.
6. Based on the said application, the petitioner and Sunil Jaggi, Director Oscan Consultant India Ltd.
AI
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and requires strong and cogent evidence of the accused's complicity.
The court clarified that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is sufficient for summoning additional accused, emphasizing that evidence merits are to be assessed during the trial.
The discretionary nature of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the requirement of stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity, and the court's active role in eliciting necessary materials and finding the....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
