Arun Madan vs State of Punjab

Swantanter Kumar, J. (Oral)

This petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter to be referred as ''the Code'') is for quashing F.I.R. No. 180 of 1996, under section 420, Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.

The petitioner who unfortunately happens to be a practising Advocate, has filed this petition in person. Before I proceed to discuss the legal controversy, which arises for consideration in this case, it will be relevant to make reference to certain facts of the case. As F.I.R. was lodged by Mr. Piara Singh, alleging that he had been working as Machineman with Northern Railways, Amritsar, from 1953 to 1986 and during his employment, his finger was damaged while working at Ferozepore. In order to redress his grievance he approached Mr. Arun Madan, Advocate (petitioner herein) to take appropriate legal action. He claims to have paid Rs. 1100/ to him (the counsel/petitioner) for conducting the case and thereafter he on various occasions made inquiries from the counselpetitioner. The said counsel informed Piara Singh that his case was pending in the Court of Shri P.C. Jain, being case No. 4038. He continued to make inquiries and finally on 31.8.1995, the counsel/petitioner informed Mr. Piara Singh that a compensation of Rs. 3.50 lacs has been granted to him. The counsel further told him that a cheque has been sent to his address by registered post. When cheque was not received, Piara Singh again contacted the counsel petitioner on 7.11.95. Then he was told that wrong number of the case was given by him due to some mistake and actually it was case No. 57/94. When the cheque was not received by Piara Singh, he again contacted the said counsel on 20.12.95 on which date he was told that he (counselpetitioner) will bring the cheque by had. Again on 2.3.96 when Piara Singh visited him (Mrr. Madan), the latter issued/gave him a cheque for the said sum of Rs. 3.50 lacs, but, before that Mr. Madan took a cheque of Rs. 11,000/ from Mr. Piara Singh. This cheque of Rs. 11,000/ was drawn on Central Bank of India, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, being cheque No. 029661. On that date (2.3.96) Mr. Madan gave a cheque for Rs. 3.50 lacs bearing No. 408772, drawn on State Bank of India from A/c No. 12475, which was deposited by Mr. Piara Singh in his account with Central Bank of India, Sultanwind Road, but the same was returned, whereupon Piara Singh approached Mr. Madan again. Then, it is alleged, that another cheque No. 113888 was given to Mr. Piara Singh and a receipt was prepared in the handwriting of Mr. Madan, which was finally made out by the complainant and given to Mr. Madan. Even this cheque, when presented in A/c No. 30219 on which the cheque was issued, it came to notice that the cheque was not from the account of Northern Railways, but was in the name of Arun Madan. This cheque was received back by Piara Singh, who had to pay Rs. 450/ as collection charges to the Bank. It is alleged that Arun Madan had issued forged cheques and had cheated the complainant Piara Singh and consequently the F.I.R./complaint was lodged on 30.10.1996. Vide order dated 26.11.1996 this Court had issued notice to the respondents to show cause why the petition be not admitted and had granted interim order to the effect that the petitioner will not be arrested till the next date of hearing. It will be appropriate to reproduce the interim order dated 26.11.96, which reads as under:

"Present : Petitioner in person.

Petitioner submits that he was never engaged by the complainant nor he was paid any amount. He further submits that the alleged payment of Rs. 11,000/ ;by cheque was never paid nor encashed by him and even the bankers of the complainant has confirmed that no such cheque was ever encashed. According to him the complaint is a malicious one. Being an advocate and in order to avoid any controversy, without prejudice to his rights and to prove his bona fides he is willing to deposit the said amount of Rs. 11,000/ in Court.

Let Rs. 11,000/ be deposited with the Registrar of this Court within a period of two days.

Issue notice to show cause to the respondents why petition be not allowed returnable on 9.12.1996.

Complainant shall be present in person. Arrest of the petitioner is stayed meanwhile.

Manager, Central Bank of India, Sultaiwind Road, Amritsar will issue certificate to the petitioner clearly stating if cheque No. 029661 dated 2.3.1996 was ever encashed. If so, in whose name and would give complete details of the withdrawal against his cheque. Copy of the order be given dasti to the petitioner."

The matter was heard at some length on 9.12.1996. On that date, Mr. Arun Madan disowned the entire incident except to the effect that Piara Singh had been coming to him since 1990. On the specific queries raised by the Court, Mr. Madan answered that he did not know anything about the account; he had never given the cheque of Rs. 3.50 lacs, nor had he seen the said cheque. He further stated before the Court that he was being falsely implicated in cases. He informed the Court that he does not have in his possession the original power of Attorney and the prayer clause, typed and signed by Piara Singh. He admitted that he had never filed any claim petition on behalf of Piara Singh. However, zerox copies of these documents were produced before the Court by the counsel, appearing for the complainant.

Consequently vide order dated 9.12.1996 I had directed the Investigating officer to find out from the Bank of Baroda, Amritsar branch, the details of A/c No. 30219 and to secure the original cheque. Today in Court, a letter had been produced from the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, certifying that the account was in the name of Mr. Arun Kumar and whose present address was prescribed as "Arun Madan, 13C, Krishna Square, Amritsar," and the Manager Incharge of the Bank has also stated that they had returned such a cheque earlier. Copy of the letter written by the Bank has also been produced before the Court today. Mr. Piara Singh also produced a receipt, allegedly in the handwriting of Mr. Arun Madan, which makes reference to the issuance of fresh cheque of Rs. 3.50 lacs in lieu of the compensation for which a cheque had already been issued. I had put this receipt to Mr. Madan and he admitted that the handwriting is his, but pleaded ignorance with reference to the contents thereof and stated that there is nothing which would indicate that it would relate to Mr. Piara Singh.

As the continuance of any order in favour of Mr. Arun Madan was seriously opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as for the complainant, I consider it appropriate to hear the parties and decide the matter on merits.

I have heard the petitioner in person at some length. The limited controversy in this regard is whether any offence is made out from the bare reading of the F.I.R. or not. Secondly, whether the petitioner is entitled to the continuation of the interim protection granted by this Court or not ?

For the purposes of determining whether an offence is made out or not, the petitioner has to admit the facts of the F.I.R./complaint to be correct. It is kind of the plea of demur which is available to the petitioner for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the F.I.R. on this ground. The law in this regard is wellsettled and has been commonly relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. Based upon the case of the State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 383 : 1972 Supp.(1) SCC 335, counsel for petitioner argues that the clause which is applicable to his case as the Supreme Court has held is, "if no offence is made out from the bare reading of the F.I.R., then the F.I.R. should be quashed". I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner, because the petitioner had not only induced the complainant to part with sum of Rs. 1100/ giving him an assurance that a petition for compensation will be filed and subsequently he charged Rs. 11,000/ by cheque as a commission because the compensation of Rs. 3.50 lacs had been awarded in favour of the complainant but for such an inducement by the petitioner, the complainant would not have paid any such amounts to the petitioner. The argument that no financial loss has been actually caused to the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the present case will be of no consequence. As per the allegations, Rs. 1100/ were actually paid and subsequently a cheque for Rs. 11,000/ was obtained. Thus, the complaint had parted with the said cheque, may be for some ulterior motive and having come to know of the consequences, the petitioner did not encash the same. Not only that the F.I.R discloses an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, but even, to my mind, indicates commission of offence which is of much larger ambit and consequence. It cannot be ignored that the petitioner had issued a forged cheque of Rs. 3.50 lacs to the complainant and even executed a receipt and had done other incidental acts i.e. even of issuing a second cheque informing the complainant that it is the amount of compensation awarded to the complainant.

Petitioner Arun Madan has not disputed either in his petition or before me today, that Mr. Piara Singh was his client and had been coming to him. Thus, a relationship of a client and the lawyer is fully accepted. Could Mr. Arun Madan cause damage to this relationship in the present manner, certainly it is neither expected nor deviable.

I would refrain from discussing further merits of this case, because it may amount to commenting upon the merits which may prejudice either of the parties during the course of investigation or trial, but certainly it has to be mentioned that such kind of activities by the counsel does not only cause the shadow upon his individual personality but it affects the Members of the Bar at large. Mr. Arun Madan has not been fair to the Court either in filing this petition on wrong facts or even by missating the facts from time to time. It was only when he was faced with certain documents written by the Banks or by him, the genuineness of which was difficult to be doubted that he regretted his conduct. Further it is a matter of regret that Mr. Arun Madan has incorrectly stated at the Bar in Court that he had never been engaged by Mr. Piara Singh on previous dates of hearing as even recorded in order dated 26.11.1996.

As I am prima facie of the view that the F.I.R. discloses an offence, I find this petition to be without any merit. The present petition being under Section 482 of the Code, which is a discretionary power vested in Court to do justice between the parties or to pass appropriate orders, so it would meet the ends of justice. The litigant, who comes with incorrect facts to the Court and abuses the process of law, can never be said to be entitled to any discretionary relief from the Court. With definite regret and pain, I have made these observations and would pass the following directions, so that justice is done to all concerned in this case :

(i) This petition under section 482 of the Code for quashing the aforestated F.I.R. is dismissed with costs, which are fixed at Rs. 11,000/.

(ii) The amount already deposited by Mr. Arun Madan with the Registrar of this Court shall be transmitted as costs in this case and shall be deposited with the Free Legalaid Cell of the High Court;

(iii) The interim order dated 26.11.1996 is hereby vacated. The Investigating Officer is hereby directed to proceed with the investigation, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

I make it clear that the F.I.R. during investigation need not be restricted to the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition is accordingly dismissed.