Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 3457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
Arun Nanda & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-628 of 2015
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. P.S. Grewal, D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Judicial decisions must be reasoned to ensure accountability and transparency; failure to provide reasons constitutes a denial of justice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of orders - Petitioners sought to quash a summoning order and a revision petition dismissal by the Sessions Judge - The court emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders, citing Supreme Court precedents on judicial accountability and transparency. (Paras 15-17)
(B) Judicial Reasoning - The court found the revisional court's dismissal of the petitioners' revision petition as a non-speaking order, failing to address arguments or provide justifications, thus breaching principles of natural justice. (Paras 13-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were summoned in a complaint involving allegations of fraud and forgery related to a travel agency and an agreement to sell. The complainant claimed to have paid significant sums without receiving the promised services. (Paras 1-12)
Findings of Court:
The court held the revisional court's order was inadequate as it lacked reasoning, necessitating a well-reasoned decision on the revision petition. (Paras 18-19)
Issues: The main issue was whether the revisional court's dismissal of the revision petition was justified, considering the lack of reasoning provided. (Paras 13-14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a failure to provide reasons in judicial decisions constitutes a denial of justice, emphasizing that judicial accountability requires transparency in decision-making. (Paras 15-17)
Result: The order dated 20.11.2014 was set aside and the matter remanded for a reasoned decision.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
Through the instant petition, as cast under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners crave for the hereinafter extracted reliefs:-
(a) Quashing of the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-3), whereby, the learned Sessions Judge concerned dismissed the revision petition, as preferred by the petitioners against the summoning order dated 16.04.2014;
(b) Quashing of the summoning order dated 16.04.2014 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the learned Magistrate concerned has summoned the petitioners, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC;
(c) Quashing of the Criminal Complaint No.879/13/15.6.2011 (23T/15.6.11/13) (Annexure P-1), titled as "Gurdeep Singh v. Arun Nanda and others", along with all subsequent proceedings.
Factual Matrix
2. The genesis of the present petition can be traced to a complaint (Annexure P-1), as made by complainant/respondent No.2, wherein, besides levelling allegations against the petitioners, allegations have also been levelled against one Rakesh Kumar son of Wazir Chand. Therefore, the contents of the complaint (Annexure P-1), are extracted hereinafter:-
"2- That the accused No.1 is working as Travel agent, accused No.2 is her husband and accused No. 3 working as Commission Agent at Khamano and his firm name is M/S Rakesh Kumar and Company Commission Agent, having license No.FGL-99 and the accused No. 3 is real brother of the accused No. 2 and the complainant sold his wheat and paddy crops to the accused No.3.
3- That the accused No. 3 told the complainant that his brother and wife of his brother (Bhabi) i.e. accused No.1 and 2, have doing the business of registered travel agency and sent so many persons abroad, if the complainant wants to go abroad then they sent him abroad. Regarding this, the complainant talk about his father Netar Singh and the father of the complainant is ready to send his son abroad because there are friendly/business relation between the father of the complainant and accused No.3.
4- That thereafter, the complainant gave his passport as well as passport of his wife to accused No. 2 in the presence of his father Netar Singh at the shop of accused No. 3 and after getting passport, said accused No.2 and 3 got signatures of the complainant as well as his wife on some blank papers and told the complainant that they sent them abroad after 3/4 months.
5- That amount: of Rs. 20 Lac was settled between the complainant and accused regarding the above said purpose and the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2 Lac to the accused No.1 and 2 after getting the same from accused No. 3, which was due against him and at that time, the father of the complainant is also presence. Thereafter the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3 Lac to the accused No.1 and 2 after getting the same from M/S Shahi Trading Company, which is due against him and the complainant also paid Rs.3,50,000/- to the accused in various installments.
6- That regarding the remaining amount, the accused persons told the complainant that 'you sold your crops in our shop and we adjust the amount of crop in the amount remaining amount of Rs.20 Lakh'. Thereafter the accused told the complainant that 'you got blank stamp papers for surety'. Thereafter the complainant gave the blank stamp papers to the accused.
7- That the accused persons failed to sent the complainant as well as his wife abroad and the complainant along with some respectable persons requested the accused persons that sent him abroad otherwise if they are incapable of sending the complainant as well as his wife abroad then return back the amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- paid by the complainant to the complainant along with interest then the accused persons threatened to the complainant that if they dared to ask again for return back of money then the accused persons will prepare and create a forged agreement to sell on blank stamp paper, which the father of the complainant got singed regarding their property under the pretext of document require to b
