Mahesh Mehta vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—Mahesh Mehta a partner of M/s. Shiv Saran Chand Ved Parkash, Katha Agents, filed the present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. No. 66 dated 11-10-1989 under sections 406, 409, 467, 471, 120B, I.P.C. and section 5(1)(d) and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act lodged at Police Station, Hariana, District Hoshiarpur.

Case was registered at the instance of Darshan Singh Inspector, Police Vigilance Bureau, Unit Hoshiarpur. As per allegations in the F. I. R. auction of certain trees was held by Gram Panchayat, Malout on 19-2-1986 when Kashmir Singh was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and Kanwarjit Singh was the Secretary of the Panchayat. The auction was conducted under the over-all supervision of accused Badan Singh Dhariwal the then District Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur (since retired). Virender Kumar and Raj Kumar offered bid for sale of ''Cheel'' trees whereas ''Khair'' trees were purchased in auction by the firm M/s. Shiv Saran Chand Ved Parkash through its manager Gobind Singh and partner Ashok Kumar. Ved Parkash and Mahesh Mehta, the present petitioner were also the partners of that firm. Des Raj Bhagat was the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Bhunga, At the time of auction ''Khair'' trees were sold at the rate of Rs. 195/- per cubic foot but subsequently auction proceedings recorded in the auction register were interpolated and entries were forged to the effect that ''Khair'' trees had been sold at the rate of Rs. 95/- per ''Mundi'' (stump) Forged copy of the resolution duly recommended by accused Dhariwal was sent to forest department for issuance of permit for cutting the trees. Felling of trees was prohibited under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 and the trees could not have been auctioned without requisite permission of the forest officers. Auction was conducted without inserting any advertisement in the news papers. Subsequently resolution No. 5 dated 19-2 1986 was illegally recorded after forging the proceedings and the auction register as a result of which Panchayat of village Malout was made to suffer loss of many lacs. The forgeries were committed by the accused after conspiring with each other and for their own benefit.

This petition has been filed on the grounds that petitioner never participated in the auction which took place on 19-2-1986 and on behalf of M/s Shiv Saran Chand Ved Parkash, Gobind Singh Gangola and Ashok Kumar contractors were present. The name of the petitioner did not find mention in the first information report and there was no direct or indirect allegation of any kind against him. The first information report was recorded after a lapse of more than three years and eight months and no action could be taken against the petitioner even if all the allegations contained in the F. I.R. were taken to be correct.

In the return filed by the respondent it was contended that charge in the case had been framed on 6-12-1991" after hearing the parties. The petitioner used to appear in the Court but he had not assailed the charge so without impugning the charge the petition for quashing the F.I R. was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that although the petitioner was not present at the time of auction he was still liable being a partner of the firm.

I have heard Mr. C. M. Sharma, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. S. Nihalsinghwala, learned counsel for the State.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of auction the petitioner was not present and the trees were purchased in auction on behalf of the firm of which the petitioner was a partner by Gobind Singh Gangola and Ashok Kumar contractors The petitioner had not forged any record nor there were any allegations against him, prima facie making him liable for the commission of an offence. There were no averments that he entered into any conspiracy with the other accused so as to interpolate or forge the record regarding auction of the trees Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner, thus, amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court and first information report was liable to be quashed It was further contended that Ved Parkash, father of the petitioner, was also a partner of the firm and he too was summoned as an accused, but after hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court found that no prima-facie case was made out against him. As such he was discharged vide order dated December 6, 1991 while the petitioner was charged for an offence u/s 120B I.P.C.

u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court is to exercise its inherent powers to quash the first information report only if the allegations made therein did not constitute the offence of which cognizance was taken by the trial Court A perusal of the first information report shows that the trees which were out to auction were purchased on behalf of the firm of which the petitioner is a partner, by a manager and another partner of the firm Subsequently the record of the Panchayat was fabricated resulting into a loss of many lacs to the Panchayat of village Malout. The allegation against the partners of M/s. Shiv Saran Chand Ved Parkash was the record was fabricated with their connivance. Copy of the order dated December 6, 1991 has been placed on record whereby the petitioner was ordered to be charged for an offence u/s 120B I.P.C. The petitioner has not made any prayer for quashing the charge by seeking amendment of the petition filed by him. At the time the charge was framed no arguments were addressed on behalf of the petitioner who was present, in support of the contention that no prima facie case was made out against him. It is correct that Ved Parkash who is father of the petitioner was discharged but his case stood on different footing. It was argued on his behalf that he was suffering from complex problems of health and had twice undergone transplantation of kidneys. He was only a sleeping partner of the firm and did not actively participate in the conduct of the business of the firm. This contention was accepted by the trial Court and no charge was framed against him on the ground that he had not participated in the auction proceedings as he was a sleeping partner. It was not the ease of the petitioner that he was not concerned with the conduct of the business of the firm. Prima facie case was made out against him for which he was duty charged. His case stands on a distinct footing than that of his father. The trial Court upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution was of the opinion that prima-facie the petitioner had committed an offence u/s 120B I.P.C. The order framing charge has not been impugned and this petition for quashing of first information report was liable to be dismissed of this ground also.

As a result I find no merit in the petition and dismiss the same.