J.K.Sood vs Kuldip Singh Sahni

S.S. Rathore, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking quashing of complaint (Annexure P2) and summoning order dated 311990 (Annexure P1). The complaint has been filed for offences under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and vide the impugned summoning order the petitioner, along with three others, has been summoned to face trial for the aforesaid charges.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has at the very outset challenged the complaint and the impugned order of summoning shortly on the ground that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true on their face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner and consequently, the summoning order also suffers from the same vice and is liable to be quashed there being no incriminating evidence recorded before Summoning the petitioner.

To appraise the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the operative part of the complaint is reproduced below

"Sir, It is submitted as under :

That the complainant is having saying Bank account No. 5286 in Vijaya Bank, Patiala and is further having Daily Deposit Account (Jivan Nidhi deposit) vide account No. 51864.

That Sunil Kumar Soodaccused No. 2 is collecting money to be deposited in daily collection system from the complainant for the last so many years. Some times accused No 3 Anil Kumar also had been coming to the complainant in the absence of Sunil Kumar.

That some time back a case u/S. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against accused No. 1, the complainant as the request of accused No. 2 and 3 helped accused No. 1 in persuing his cast.

That all the three accused No. 1 to 3 were on visiting terms with the complainant since long.

That the complainant was present in his office at residence at 8.30 P.M. on 2891989 when accused Nos, 1 to 3 came with a request that they want a deposit to be given in the bank as the services of accused No. 2. Sunil Kumar is to 66 confirmed by the bank authorities.

That accused Nos. 1 to 3 made criminal conspiracy and with common intention stated wrong facts and induced the complainant to part with the money. The complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 16,000/ to be deposited in the bank on 29.5.1989.

That at that time Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh Bhatia and Sh. Preet Mohinder Singh, Advocate and Sh. Surjit Singh, Clerk and my private typist Harinder Pal Singh were sitting in the office.

That on 2991989 at 10.30 A.M. accused No. 2 came in the court compound and asked the complainant to pay the amount of Rs. 16,000/. The complainant accompanied accused No. 2 to Bank (Vijaya Bank, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala) along with Preet Mohinder Singh, Advocate.

That about 718 customers were standing in front of the window of receipt cashier in the bank premises. The deposit form for the saving amount was filled by accused No. 2 for deposit of Rs. 16,000/ in account No. 5286, and it was got signed by the complainant. The pass book of the saying account was also given by the complainant to accused No. 2.

That accused No. 2 with while going inside of the clerical staff paid Rs. 16,000/ to the receipt cashier along with the deposit voucher in presence of the complainant and asked the clerk to make the entry regarding deposit. Something was whispered in the ears of the clerk.

That accused No. 2 then asked the complainant to go to courts and it will take some time for effecting the entry in the pass book as 78 persons/customers were already standing the queue for their deposits.

That on the assurance of accused No. 2 that since the amount has been given to the cashier, the entry will be made in the pass book and the pass book will be returned in the evening at the time of daily collection visit, the complainant left the bank premises along with Preet Mohinder Singh, Advocate.

That for a week''s period, accused No. 2 did not meet and then on enquiry it revealed that all the accused have committed fraud by conspiracy and have cheated the complainant.

That complainant met accused Nos. 1 and 3 who begged apologies and undertook to pay the amount within a month''s period.

That the complainant asked accused Nos. 1 to 3 as to why they played fraud with the complainant. They assured to make the payment.

That accused No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/ to the complainant on 1121989 and assured to pay the balance amount of Rs. 8000/ within 23 days.

That accused No. 1 has now refused to pay the money which was given to accused No. 2 on the assurance of accused Nos. 1 and 3.

That all the accused have cheated the complainant with conspiracy and induced the complainant having knowledge that they are inducing with wrong facts in their mind.

That there was further criminal conspiracy between accused Nos. 2 and 4 as such after leaving the bank premises the complainant, accused No. 2 returned Rs. 16,000/ and deposit voucher was destroyed.

That the amount of Rs. 16,000/ was entrusted to accused No. 4 in presence of the complainant. Since it was not entered in the accounts, with criminal conspiracy the amount has been cheated.

That the complainant informed the Bank Manager who did not pay any heed.

That act of the accused fall under Sections 406/420/120B/34 IPC.

It is, therefore, prayed that the case may kindly be ordered to be registered and the accused be brought to book."

After recording of the preliminary evidence of three PWs, the trialCourt passing the impugned order (Annexure P1) summoning the accused and operative part of the said order reads as under :

"Complainant Kuldip Singh Sahni Advocate filed this complaint against the accused under Sections 406/420/120B IPC on the allegation that he is having a saving bank account in Vijaya Bank, Patiala. Accused Sunil Kumar used to collect money from him for the last so many years, and in his absence accused Anil Kumar used to take the money. It is alleged that a case under Section 5 of the Corruption Act was registered against accused No. 1. The complainant at the request of accused Nos. 2 and 3 served accused No. 1 on 2891989, obtained an amount of Rs. 16,000/ to be deposited in the bank on 2291989. At that time Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh Bhatia and Preet Mohinder Singh Advocates, Gurjit Singh Clerk were present. He accompanied accused No. 2 to the bank along with Preet Mohinder Singh, Advocate Deposit form was filled by the accused for deposit of Rs. 16,000/ in account No. 5286 and was signed by the complainant and pass book of saving account was given to accused No. 2. While,going Accused No. 2 told that the amount has been given to the cashier and pass book would be returned in the evening but later on he came to know that the accused had played fraud upon him.

In the preliminary statement Kuldip Singh Sahni appeared as PW1 and examined Sh Gurjit Singh PW2 and Preet Mohinder Singh PW3 to support the fact. alleged in the plaint.

In view of this position there is a prima facie case for summoning the accused under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused be summoned for 27290 on filing of list the witnesses and copy of the complaint P.P."

From the bare perusal of the complaint, it is crystal clear that no incriminating allegation whatsoever has been made in the complaint against Shri J. K. Sood petitioner. At the most, it can be said against him that he is father of coaccused Sunil Sood and Anil Sood and because of the complainant''s acquaintance with Shri J.K. Sood, the complaint went to the bank along with cash amount of Rs. 16,000/ to be deposited in the bank. The learned counsel for the complainant has admitted as of fact that this amount of Rs. 16,000/ had to be deposited in the bank as detailed in the complainant, for getting the services of coaccused Sunil Sood confirmed by the bank authorities. This need of depositing the said amount and representation to that effect has been admitted to be true. The only grievance of the complainant is that the present petitioner is father of coaccused Sunil Sood and Anil Sood and he along with them had come to the complainant to seek a favour for depositing the amount. Beyond this, nothing has been alleged against the petitioner except that later on lit came along with his sons (coaccused) and paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/ on l121939 and assured to pay the balance amount of Rs. 8,000/ within 23 days. The allegation to this effect is contained in para No. 16 of the complaint.

So far as the summoning order is concerned. it is suffice to say that it cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. In the impugned order a word has not been said as to how prima facie any criminal liability can be fastened upon the present petitioner. The evidence has been discussed by the trial Court in first para of the order. In the second para, he has merely given the names of PWs examined by him before summoning the accused. While concluding the order, no reasons have been given while summoning the accused persons for offences under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the face of it, this order is sketchy and nonspeaking.

The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judicial precedent viz. State of Bihar v Murad Ali Khan and others, AIR 1989 Supreme Court and Vivek and another v Surinder Singh, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 430. With respect, these judgment are of no help to the complainant. There is no dispute that the complaint and proceedings initiated thereon cannot be quashed by this Court while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it prima facie an offence is disclosed from the contents of the complaint.

It is also made clear that some unfounded inference has been sought to be drawn of conspiracy against the petitioner. Such allegations in the complaint are conjectural and without any evidence recorded before passing of the summoning order. Such allegations of conspiracy without any foundation have to be ignored even at this stage. The complainant cannot conceivably substantiate such allegations.

As per the reproduction of the complaint and the impugned order above, it is clear that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and in this situation if the proceedings are allowed to continue against the present petitioner, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly this petition is allowed and so far as the petitioner alone is concerned, the aforesaid complaint and summoning order are ordered to be quashed.