Sher Bahadur Singh vs State of Punjab

J.S. Sekhon, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7960M of 1987 as well as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5509M of 1988 as both these petitions pertain to quashment of the orders resulting from noncompliance of the terms of `Sapurdginama'' executed by Sher Bahadur Singh petitioner. In the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5509M of 1988 the petitioner seeks quashment of the First Information Report got registered against him by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that he having failed to produce Truck No. PUG6174 as per terms of his `Sapurdginama'' he has misappropriated the same while in the other petition the petitioner claims quashment of the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate as well as of the Sessions Judge qua the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 80,000/ of `sapurdginama'' of the truck on account of his failure to produce the same before trial Court.

In brief, the facts of the case are that Dhani Ram Khanna depicting himself to be owner of the truck bearing Registration No. PUG6174 lodged a complaint for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code qua the theft of this truck against Anil Kumar son of R.N. Kaushal. During the pendency of those proceedings the truck was released by the trial Court on 11.4.1975 on executing `sapurdginama'' by Sher Bahadur Singh in the sum of Rs. 80,000/ undertaking to produce the truck before trial Court. Dhani Ram complainant went in revision against that order before the Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 1.10.1975 accepted the Revision Petition of the complainant and directed the release of the truck to Dhani Ram complainant on furnishing requisite bonds etc. Sher Bahadur Singh failed to produce the truck before the trial Court for its delivery to Dhani Ram complainant which resulted in filing application dated 20.9.1985 by the complainant against Sher Bahadur Singh. The trial Court gave notice to Sher Bahadur Singh petitioner for showing cause as to why the forfeiture amount of `sapurdginama'' may not be recovered from him as penalty under the provisions of Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately after hearing the parties forfeiture amount of Rs. 80,000/ was ordered to be realised as penalty by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the present petitioner went in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar which was dismissed on 30.4.1987.

During the pendency of the above referred proceeding, trial Court got registered a case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against Sher Bahadur Singh petitioner vide First Information Report (Annexure P3 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5509M of 1988) on the ground that the truck was entrusted to him on sapurdari for production before it but he has misappropriated the same.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

Shri Hemant Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal defect in the proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure resulting in forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 80,000/. He simply contends that the affidavit filed by Dhani Ram complainant reveals that the parties have effected compromise and all disputes have been settled. Under these circumstances the petitioner has technically violated the provisions of `sapurdginama''. The petitioner has already suffered the pangs and harassment of the pendency of these proceedings against him since long.

In view of the above circumstance, for technical violation of the terms of the `sapurdginama'', the amount of forfeiture is reduced to Rs. 100/ and the petitioner is directed to pay this amount as penalty under the provisions of Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by partly accepting Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7960M of 1987.

Regarding the quashment of the First Information Report got registered against the petitioner for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, on account of his failure to produce the truck before the trial Court in terms of the `sapurdginama'', it transpires that mere failure to produce the truck on the specific dates would amount only to the breach of the terms of the `sapurdginama'' and would not amount to misappropriation unless there is some evidence that Sher Bahadur Singh had sold that is truck to some other person or had misappropriated the sale proceeds thereof. Anyhow, since the affidavit filed by Dhani Ram complainant is the effect that the parties have reconciled the matter, the pendency of the investigation in the said case would amount to abuse of the process of the court specifically when case was got registered by the trial Court itself. Under these circumstances First Information Report Annexure P3 (in Criminal Misc. No. 5509M of 1988) and resultant proceedings therefrom are quashed by accepting Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5509M of 1988.

Both these petitions stand disposed of accordingly.