Bikkar Singh vs State of Punjab

Daya Chaudhary, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 21435 of 2014

This is an application for placing on record Annexure P-12. Criminal Misc. Application is allowed and Annexure P-12 is taken on record.

Crl. Misc. No. M-14760 of 2014

The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of order dated 24.03.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, whereby, the complaint case was converted to State case and also the order dated 29.05.2009, whereby, the respondent No. 2 has been discharged. Order dated 07.09.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana is also a subject matter of challenge as the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that an FIR No. 82 dated 13.03.1997 was registered under Sections 382 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana against respondent No. 2-Maninderjit Singh and his co-accused on the basis of statement made by the petitioner. The allegations in the complaint were that on 13.03.1997, when the petitioner went to drop the daughter of Pritpal Singh in Maruti Esteem Car No. PB-10-Q-6200 which belonged to his employer, the car was snatched by four persons at the instance of respondent No. 2-Maninderjit Singh and thereafter, it was handed over to him. After inquiry, the police filed a cancellation report in the case and notice was issued to the petitioner. The cancellation report was accepted by the Court and thereafter, a protest petition was filed by the petitioner against the said cancellation report. Accepting the protest petition, the Court recorded the statements of the petitioner along with six witnesses and then the accused were summoned to face trial vide order dated 15.04.2008. However, the order of summoning was challenged by respondent No. 2 by way of filing Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the same was withdrawn by making a statement to file application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. Thereafter, the application was moved for recalling of order dated 15.04.2008, whereby, respondent No. 2 was summoned. Out of all four accused persons, two accused, namely, Rakesh Palta and Balwinder Singh were declared as proclaimed offender, however, the charges were framed against other two accused, namely, Jaspreet Singh and Hardeep Singh. Respondent no. 2-Maninderjit Singh was discharged vide order dated 29.05.2009, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing revision petition which was also dismissed on 07.09.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that the application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. was filed, however, without taking any decision thereupon, the impugned order has been passed. He also submits that the case was fixed for consideration of said application but without taking any decision thereupon, the complaint case was treated as a State case. Thereafter, the charges were also framed against two accused but the respondent No. 2, herein, was discharged. Learned counsel also submits that a case was made out u/s 382 read with Section 34 IPC against respondent No. 2 and his co-accused but the cancellation report was submitted before the trial Court without giving any notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the sufficient evidence was produced by the petitioner and on the basis of that evidence, respondent No. 2 was summoned. Still, he was discharged. He further submits that the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision of the petitioner without giving any finding. Learned counsel also submits that the subsequent order passed by the Courts below amounts to review of earlier orders, which is not maintainable.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner; perused the impugned orders as well as other documents on the file and have carefully perused the zimini orders on record.

Admittedly, the petitioner was not satisfied with the cancellation report and therefore, he filed a protest petition, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.04.2008. It was specifically mentioned in the said order that the case was to be treated as police case. However, the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. In case FIR No. 82 dated 13.03.1997 registered under Sections 382 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Division No. 5, Civil lines, Ludhiana, the names of four accused were mentioned but initially the name of respondent No. 2 was not there. However, during investigation, the name of respondent No. 2 came up. The only allegation against respondent No. 2 was that his co-accused had acted on his behest and there was no evidence of this sort. It has also come on record that the petitioner, being driver of Pritpal Singh, was driving the car of the firm i.e. M/s. B.K. Industries, 173, Focal Point, Ludhiana and the car was purchased by raising loan from some banker. The amount of loan could not be re-paid. Respondent no. 2, being one of the partner, had requested the banker to re-possess the vehicle so that the sale proceeds could be realized against the outstanding loan amount. Co-accused, namely, Rakesh Palta, Balwinder Singh, Jaspreet Singh and Hardeep Singh were deputed by the banker for taking the car in possession and the custody of the said car was taken from the possession of the petitioner. This fact has also been mentioned in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, respondent no. 2 was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. The petitioner was having remedy to challenge the order dated 15.04.2008 as the same has attained finality. On the basis of said order, respondent No. 2 was discharged as no offence was found to be made out against him. All the accused were found innocent including respondent No. 2 and the FIR was ordered to be cancelled. Thereafter only, the protest petition was filed.

In view of the above, I find that the order of discharge as well as the order passed by the Revisional Court are well reasoned and no interference is required. As such, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.