H.S.Grover, Accounts Officer vs Rajinder Singh

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

By means of this judgment, Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 3226M, 2035M and 2037M of 1986 shall stand disposed of.

These are in a way connected mattes. The Union of India through the Accountant General, Punjab, and Comptroller & Auditor General of India, as joint plaintiffs, filed a suit on 30.6.1983 before the Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, for permanent injunction against 26 employees of the office of the Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh, restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful working of the Accountant General, Punjab''s office, at Chandigarh and further restraining them from raising slogans within the office premises of the plaintiff''s office situated at Section 17 in Chandigarh and further restraining the defendants from demonstrating within the 250 yards from the office buildings of the plaintiffs and raising slogans etc. The suit was entertained. Rajinder Singh, respondent in Criminal Misc. No. 3226M of 1986, was defendant No. 24 in that suit. He filed a written statement refuting all the allegations in the plaint.

Besides that, he filed an application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court claiming that the plaint filed by the plaintiffs was a false and forged document because, if rubbed against the charges submitted against him before the Departmental Enquiry Officer, it would be found so. On that application the trial judge, summoned the Accountant General, Punjab, the signatory of the plaint and the Senior Deputy Advocate General who had signed the chargesheet against the said defendantrespondent. To support his allegations in the application Rajinder Singh filed another application before the trial Judge requiring him to have the departmental file. When the departmental file came, he claimed that the departmental file itself had been forged and thus prayed or summoning of these other persons, namely, H.S. Grover, B.S. Sandhu and V.M. Narula H.S. Grover, one of those, being aggrieved against the summoning order has approached him Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On the other hand, Jagdish Singh Tanwar, a senior Auditor under suspension, filed a civil suit on 5.9.1985 in the same Court against the Union of India, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the Accountant General of Punjab at Chandigarh and Satish Loomba and Ram Singh (petitioners in Criminal Misc. Nos. 2035M and 2037M of 1986 respectively) of mandatory injunction directing the defendants not to initiate any action including proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry and subsequent action on the basis of the charge sheet dated 29.9.1984. Ancillary reliefs were also sought in the plaint. Written statements were filed Jagdish Singh Tanwar dubbed them false and forted. He thus made an application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Judge, claiming that an enquiry be held against Ram Singh and Satish Loomba (petitioners) and others. The trial Court summoned them Aggrieved against the aforesaid action, Ram Singh and Satish Loomba, petitioners, are in this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Nos. 2035M and 2037 of 1986 respectively.

The suit filed by the Union of India was ultimately withdrawn and dismissed as such. The suit filed by Jagdish Singh Tanwar, however, was transferred to the Control Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh on the creation of its new jurisdiction. It is stated at the Bar that suit also was dismissed by the Tribunal. All the applications under section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, however, were kept pending by the trial Judge in this Court. Thus, in all the three petitions, the question which crops up for consideration is whether the proceedings against the respective petitioners under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for allegedly filing false or forged documents before the Civil Court, shall be allowed to continue or not.

Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, is reproduced herein :

Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195

(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195, which appear to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the cas may be in respect of a document produced or giving in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may after such preliminary inquiry, if any as it thinks necessary :

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) sent it to Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is nonbailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, sent the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate."

92) The power conferred on a Court by subsection (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under subsection (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of subsection (4) of section 195."

The object of this section is to record a finding to that effect and then make a complaint thereof in writing to a Court of law. Thus, the motivating factor is that such enquiry should be conducted if it is expedient in the interests of justice. The second one is that an offence of the kind mentioned there in must appear to have been committed for which the Court alone under section 195 (1)(b). Code of Criminal Procedure, chooses to become a complainant.

In the instant cases, as the facts are patent, neither of the two considerations surface, in the first place, neither of the two suits were decided by the trial Judge and the Court had no occasion to determine the falsity or otherwise of the documents produced by the petitioners. To repeat here, it is observed that one suit was dismissed as withdrawn and the other one went to the Tribunal to be dismissed. Secondly, the Court received the documents allegedly false and forged from the petitioners as part of the Court files and nowhere were offences committed in relation to those documents while the matter was pending in the Court. In other words, offences were not committed when the documents stood filed in the Courts. They had been introduced on the file as pleadings or proof in the prefabricated forms; in other words already falsified and forged. A Full Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 5095M of 1985 (Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab), 1986(2) RCR(Crl.) 481 (P&H) : decided on 7.5.1986 hold that in such a situation section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be attracted and the Court is not obliged under section 195(1)(b)(ii) to be the complainant. Similarly, there was no occasion to hold the documents and pleadings to be false. Thus, plainly, on both aspects of the case, the proceedings against the petitioners on applications under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are nothing but abuse of the process of the Court and deserve to be struck off from the file of the learned Judge. It is held accordingly.

For the aforesaid reasons, these petitions are accepted and the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

JUDGMENTed accordingly.