Criminal Revision No. 722 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 722 of 2007 Date of Decision: 05.05.2009 1. Yadvinder Singh son of Shri Pritpal Singh alias Chuhar Singh; 2. Virender Singh son of Shri Pritpal Singh alias Chuhar Singh; 3. Beeru Ram Nambardar son of Munshi Ram; All residents of village Ahun, Tehsil and District Kaithal. 4. Shabeg Singh son of Dhara Singh son of Sarain Singh, resident of Amupur, Sub Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. ... Revision-petitioners Versus 1. Mansa Singh son of Shri Jiwan Singh, resident of village Ahun, now resident of village Pundri, Tehsil and District Kaithal. 2. Pritpal Singh alias Chuhar Singh son of Shri Labh Singh, resident of village Ahun, Tehsil and District Kaithal. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision petition is directed against the Order, dated 16.03.2006, rendered by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, vide which, it summoned the accused, for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in a Criminal Revision No. 722 of 2007 2 complaint case, filed by the complainant/respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Yadvinder Singh, and Virender Singh, accused, filed a suit, against Shabeg Singh, in respect of land, measuring 26 kanal 13 marlas, comprising khewat No. 363, khatoni No. 464. In the suit, it was averred that the parties to the same were close relatives and, in the family settlement, the above said land had been given to the plaintiffs. The parties appeared in the Court. Shabeg Singh, defendant, in that case, made a statement that the plaintiffs (in that case) were the sons of his brother-in-law. It was further stated that, in fact, Yadvinder Singh, and Virender Singh, belonged to a different caste, whereas Shabeg Singh, belonged to a different sub-caste. It was further stated that they had no relationship, whatsoever, with each other. It was further stated that the accused, in connivance with each other, with a view to cause wrongful loss to the State of stamp duty, and wrongful gain to themselves, prepared false documents and, as such, rendered the commission of offences, referred to above. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the Court below, summoned the accused, for the offences, referred to above. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition was filed by the revision-petitioners. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, at the very outset, submitted that the revision-petitioners, did not make any false statement, before the Court, at the time of filing the suit, in the Civil Court, against Shabeg Singh. It was further submitted that even, if it was assumed that, Criminal Revision No. 722 of 2007 3 such a false statement was made, in the Court, then it was for the Court, to file a complaint, and the respondents/complainants, who had got connection with the case, were not competent to do so. He further submitted that no false documents were created by the petitioners, in that case, nor the stamp duty was evaded. He further submitted that there is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court, as also of the Court of Sessions, in entertaining the revision-petition, and, as such, the revision-petition, in this Court, is competent. It was further submitted that, from the allegations, contained in the complaint and from the preliminary evidence the offences for which the petitioners were summoned to face trial, were not made out. 7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the revision-petition, against the order dated 16.03.2006, vide which, the revision-petitioners, were summoned, as accused, is maintainable, in the Court of Sessions. He further submitted that, no doubt, there is concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions, as also of the High Court, in entertaining the revision, against the order of summoning, yet the revision- petitioners, were required to avail of the remedy, by approaching the Sessions Court, in the first instance. He further submitted that it was not necessary for the Court, to file a complaint. He further submitted that anybody could put the criminal law into motion, and, as such, the respondents/complainants, could file a complaint. He further submitted that the trial Court, was right, in taking cognizance of the complaint, and summoning the revision-petitioners, as accused. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the contentions raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being Criminal Revision No. 722 of 2007 4 grounded, on sound footing, are liable to be accepted. In Rajendra Kumar Sita Ram Pande Vs. Uttam, 1999 (1), RCR (Crl.), 800 (S.C.), it was held that an order passed by a Magistrate, directing issuance of process is not purely an interlocutory order. It is an intermediate or quasi-judicial order, against which, a revision is maintainable. No doubt, in the first instance, the revision-petitioners, were required to go to the Court of Sessions, by way of filing a revision-petition, against the order impugned. However, this case, has got a chequered history. The present revision-petition, was filed, in this Court, in the year 2007, and since then, it is continuing. Various orders, regarding the stay of proceedings, and grant of bail, to the revision- petitioners, were also passed by this Court. Under these circumstances, at this stage, it would not be in the fitness of things, to direct the petitioners to approach the Court of Sessions, for challenging the order impugned. If that course is adopted, that would amount to protracting the proceeding further. In this view of the matter, it is held that the present revision-petition, is maintainable, in this Court, as it has got concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the same, against the order impugned. 9. The perusal of the order impugned, shows that the allegations, against the revision-petitioners/accused, were that, by obtaining the decree, in the civil suit, on the basis of false and fabricated documents, they avoided the payment of stamp duty, and, thus, caused wrongful loss to the State of Punjab and wrongful gain to them. As stated above, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, filed a suit for declaration, against Shabeg Singh, claiming that the parties were related to each other, and with a view to amicably settle their disputes, a family settlement was arrived at. They claimed decree, on the basis of family settlement. Shabeg Singh, defendant, in that suit, when appeared Criminal Revision No. 722 of 2007 5 admitted the claim of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs therein) and the Court passed the decree. The Court below, came to the conclusion that, no stamp duty, was required to be affixed on the decree. Had the Court below, come to the conclusion, that the stamp duty, was required to be affixed, it would have ordered so. There is nothing, on record, to show that any document was forged and used as genuine by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, for the purpose of obtaining the decree, referred to above. The matter, with regard to the affixation of stamp duty, on the decree, was between the Court and the State and not between the Court and a private party. When the Court held that the claim of the plaintiffs, in the Suit, was genuine, and passed the decree on the basis of the admission of the same, it is not known as to how, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, cheated the State, by allegedly causing wrongful loss of stamp duty to it. The allegations, contained in the complaint, as also the preliminary evidence, produced by the complainants, did not disclose the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, by any stretch of imagination. The trial Court, therefore, exercised the jurisdiction, vested in it, capriciously and arbitrarily. The impugned order dated 16.03.2006, of the Court below, is, thus, illegal and perverse. The same is liable to be set-aside. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The order dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure P1), rendered by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, is set-aside. 05.05.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE