Badan Singh and Smt. Om Pati vs Sh. R.K. Sondhi and State of Haryana

Kiran Anand Lall, J.—Badan Singh and his brother''s wife Om Patti have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short "the code"), for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-6, filed against them, u/s 193/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, by Shri R.K. Sondhi, Civil Judge, Siwani, and the order dated 26.07.1996, Annexure P-7, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, summoning them as accused in that complaint.

The facts are like this. Badan Singh petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration against Om Patti petitioner in the court of Civil Judge, Siwani, District Hisar. Om Patti petitioner appeared in court and filed written statement, Annexure P-2, admitting his claim and prayed that the suit be decreed. She also made a statement, Annexure P-3, in this regard. On being questioned by the learned Civil Judge, she further stated, vide Annexure P-8, that she had received Rs. 60,000/- from Badan Singh petitioner (plaintiff) in lieu of the land. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit, and while doing so he also held, vide Annexure P-5, that it was a fit case where a complaint for-committing offence u/s 193/120-B of the Indian Penal Code be filed against the petitioners. He, thereafter, filed complaint, Annexure P-6, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. The petitioners were summoned as accused by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, vide order dated 26.7.1996, Annexure P-7. Thereafter, they filed this petition for quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order.

On notice of the petition being issued, Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appeared on behalf of the respondent-State.

I have heard arguments addressed by Shri Vivek Singal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

Shri Vivek Singal, Advocate, contended that neither of the two petitioners had committed the alleged offence u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code and the averments made by the complainant in complaint Annexure P-6, that Om Patti petitioner had admitted that no such family settlement had taken place between the parties. On the other hand, she had sold the suit land to plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/-, are factually incorrect. He drew my attention to the written statement, Annexure P-2, Annexure P-3 and P-8 respectively, (before the court) in which not a word appears which may indicate that Om Patti petitioner had sold the land in question to Badan Singh petitioner. Instead, in written statement Annexure P-2, Om Patti petitioner had admitted the correctness of the claim made by Badan Singh petitioner (plaintiff) in plaint, Annexure P-1, about the suit land having been given to Badan Singh petitioner in a family settlement got effected by a Panchayat of the brotherhood. In view of these facts, it not known as to on what basis, the complainant, Shri R.K. Sondhi, Civil Judge, Siwani, recorded the following facts in complaint Annexure P-6:-

"However, when the defendant was confronted regarding the facts of family settlement, she admitted that no such family settlement had taken place between the parties. On the other hand, she had sold the suit land to plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/-".

It was a simple case of admission of claim of the plaintiff (Badan Singh) by the defendant (Om Patti) who was a member of the same family. No doubt, in a subsequent statement recorded by the court. Om Patti petitioner had further stated (vide Annexure P-8) that she had received Rs. 60,000/- from the plaintiff in lieu of the land. But, the question which falls for determination is as to whether the factum of receipt of Rs. 60,000/- by Om Patti from Badan Singh in lieu of the land, could be interpreted to mean that Om Patti had, in fact, sold the suit land to Badan Singh for the amount referred to in her statement? The obvious reply would be in the negative. It appears that because in the family settlement. Om Patti had received cash amount of Rs. 60,000/- and Badan Singh petitioner was given the suit land, the former (Om Patti) revealed the correct facts when a query was made by the Court, with regard to the relevant details of the family settlement. It cannot, therefore, by any stretch of imagination, be said that Om Patti had given false evidence in court by making a statement on each, knowing the same to be false. Same remarks apply to the case of Badan Singh also. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Dr. S.P. Kohli, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, , in which it was held that "it is now well settled that prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where it appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. It is also well recognized that thee must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the Court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge". This judgment clearly applies to the case in hand. The court had absolutely no material before it to reach the conclusion that any averment made by the parties in the pleadings or any statement made by them during the course of judicial proceedings was false. If the court doubted the correctness of averments made in the pleadings or the facts stated by the parties in the statement made by them, it could have asked them to lead evidence with regard thereto. But, it did not do so. Instead, it arrived at the conclusion of false evidence having been given by the petitioner in court by relying on two non-existing facts viz. (i) no family settlement had taken place between the parties and (ii) Om Patti had sold the suit land to Badan Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. The complaint, Annexure P-6, is, therefore, liable to be quashed on this ground alone, and so is the summoning order Annexure P-7, issued on the basis thereof.

Reference may also be made to one more judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners 1998 (4) R.C.R. (Crl) 518, Hazara Singh v. Rattan Singh, in support of his contention that the complaint was liable to be quashed on the ground that the court concerned had not recorded any finding to the effect that lodging of the complaint was expedient in the interest of justice. He pointed out that Section 340 of the Code reveals that recording of such a finding is a fundamental requirement before a complaint u/s 340 of the Code is lodged. No authority to the contrary was cited on behalf of the State-respondent. Therefore, as complaint, Annexure P-6, does not reveal that before lodging the complaint, the court had reached the conclusion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so, it is liable to be quashed due to this legal lacuna also.

In the light of what has been discussed above, the revision petition is accepted, and complaint, Annexure P-6, summoning order, Annexure P-7, and the resultant proceedings, if any, taken with regard thereto, are quashed.