The argument put forth by learned counsel for respondent
No.1, even if believed, does not make out a case for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC. If an
article sent through speed post is lost in the transit or even if wrongly
delivered, attracts the responsibility of the department and not of an
individual until or unless some specific reason or motive for commission
of offences, has been attributed to him. Interestingly, the person who
received the payment of the demand draft was known and his mobile
number and bank account number were with the complainant. It is quite
strange that the complainant has not proceeded against that person by
filing any complaint in the Court or before the police. The trial Court or
the Court of revision committed grave error by summoning the petitioner
to face trial. The Court of revision has also not looked into the fact that
no prima facie case is disclosed against the petitioner even from the
perusal of the complaint and the evidence produced before the trial Court.
The Court is not a mouth-piece of complainant and before ordering the
summoning of any person to face the agony of trial, it is required to
scrutinize the allegations and the evidence produced before it to make out
a prima facie case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-26096 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 21, 2014.
S.P. Pahwa
VERSUS
Anil Chopra and another
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
This petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated
2.8.2012 passed by the trial Court, whereby the petitioner who is posted
as Incharge, Speed Post Centre, Railway Station, Ludhiana, has been
summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the
order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Court of revision dismissing the
revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court.
2.
As per the complainant, a demand draft bearing No.798282
dated 29.07.2000 for `5,45,314 was sent by M/s Kumar International,
Hyderabad to the complainant by speed post but was not received by him.
The draft was drawn at Bank of Baroda. The complainant made inquiry
from the bank as well as the post office but did not receive any
satisfactory reply. On his application under the Right to Information Act,
he was informed by Head Post Master that the speed post article was
received at Speed Post Centre, Ludhiana on 31.07.2008 but further
disposal of the article was not traceable.
3.
Complainant was later informed that the demand draft was
got encashed by some person having account in the bank at Karnal,
Haryana. Para No.7 to 10 of complaint filed by respondent No.1 making
out the cause of action and the allegations against the petitioner are
reproduced as follows:-
“7.
That thereafter the complainant made a
written request/demand under RTI, Act for supply of
information and necessary documents vide letter dated
22.08.2008 which was duly received by them but they
did not gave any reply or information to the complainant.
Since the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to steal
and encash the said demand draft.
8.
That the complainant also approached the
accused persons several times but the accused persons
refused to hear the complainant.
9.
That the accused in connivance with each
other forged and fabricated the demand draft which was
in the name of the firm of the complainant and got
encashed in connivance with each other and rather the
accused threatened with dire consequences in case the
complainant agitated the matter with any authority. The
accused in order to cause wrongful loss to the
complainant and wrongful gain to themselves have done
all this.
10.
That by doing the aforesaid acts, accused
with their common criminal intention committed the
offences punishable U/s 420/467/468/471/506/120-B
IPC within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.”
4.
The trial Court observed that the payment of demand draft
has been made to Kirpal (Kiranpal) Singh. The photocopy of the draft
Annexure P-5 shows that the draft was endorsed in the name of Kiranpal
Singh whom the payment was released. The account number and phone
number of that Kiranpal are also on the back of the draft.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,
who was posted as Incharge, Speed Post Centre, Railway Station,
Ludhiana has been summoned by the trial Court in a very casual manner
without any specific allegations against him in the complaint. Even if,
we believe that the draft sent to the complainant was misplaced or fell in
the hand of some wrong person, the liability is of the department and not
of an individual official.
There is no evidence that petitioner had
performed any specific role in the endorsement of the demand draft in the
name of Kiran Pal Singh.
7.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that at the
relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Incharge of Speed Post Centre,
Railway Station, Ludhiana, as such, he is to be held liable for the
misplacement of the speed post sent for the petitioner from Hyderabad.
8.
On perusal of the complaint and order passed by the learned
trial Court and of the Court of revision, I find that the summoning of the
petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.1 is a clear misuse of the
process of the Court. The complainant in the entire complaint has not
levelled any specific allegations against the petitioner.
9.
The argument put forth by learned counsel for respondent
No.1, even if believed, does not make out a case for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC. If an
article sent through speed post is lost in the transit or even if wrongly
delivered, attracts the responsibility of the department and not of an
individual until or unless some specific reason or motive for commission
of offences, has been attributed to him. Interestingly, the person who
received the payment of the demand draft was known and his mobile
number and bank account number were with the complainant. It is quite
strange that the complainant has not proceeded against that person by
filing any complaint in the Court or before the police. The trial Court or
the Court of revision committed grave error by summoning the petitioner
to face trial. The Court of revision has also not looked into the fact that
no prima facie case is disclosed against the petitioner even from the
perusal of the complaint and the evidence produced before the trial Court.
The Court is not a mouth-piece of complainant and before ordering the
summoning of any person to face the agony of trial, it is required to
scrutinize the allegations and the evidence produced before it to make out
a prima facie case.
10.
In view of my discussion above, this petition succeeds.
Impugned order dated 2.8.2012 Annexure P-2 and dated 1.4.2013
Annexure P-4 are quashed qua the petitioner along with all the
consequential proceedings taken against him in pursuance to the above
orders.
May 21, 2014.
Sachin M.
( SURINDER GUPTA )
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment