Criminal Appeal No.6342-M of 2005 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.6342-M of 2005 Date of decision : 15.9.2008 Padam Nabh Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. K.S.Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner has applied for quashment of FIR (Annexure P-A) which had been lodged against him under the orders of the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiapur for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The essential allegations in the course of the FIR, may be indicated as under:- “It is submitted as per the report of Smt. Sewa Kaur, Civil Ahlmad in this Court, as per the entries in the Civil suits register for the year 1991, there is no entry with regard to Civil Suit No. 539 of 1991 Padam Nabh Singh son of Hakam Singh Versus 1. Hakam Singh son of Waryam Singh. 2. State of Punjab through Collector, Hoshiapur. She has further reported that as per the civil suit register Criminal Appeal No.6342-M of 2005 -2- **** the entries have only been made upto Sr. No. 530 dated 24.12.1991.” The exact nature of the allegations would be evident from the following averments made by the respondent in the counter:- “ Preliminary Submissions:- That in fact the case FIR No. 165 dated 16.7.04 under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC was got registered by the ld. Court of Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur. The allegations in the FIR are that one judgment of the Civil court passed in civil suit No. 539/1991 titled as Padam Nabh Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, mwhich was used in the Court of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was a forged and fabricated judgment and decree sheet. The accused forged this judgment and decree of this Court as he knew that the Judicial Record Room had been destroyed in a divesting fire in the year 1998. Since there was no record in the judicial record room, it was not easy to challenge the judgment but it was revealed from the institution Register of 1991 that suit no. 539 of the year 1991 was never instituted as per the institution register. On the basis of this evidence, the case was registered against the accused-petitioner. On Merits : 1. xxx xxxx xxx 2. xxx xxxx xxx Criminal Appeal No.6342-M of 2005 -3- **** 3. xxx xxxx xxx 4. That in fact the case FIR No. 165 dated 16.7.04 under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC was got registered by the ld. Court of Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur. The allegations in the FIR are that one judgment of the Civil court passed in civil suit No. 539/1991 titled as Padam Nabh Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, which was used in the Court of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was a forged and fabricated judgment and decree sheet. The accused forged this judgment and decree of this Court as he knew that the Judicial Record Room had been destroyed in a divesting fire in the year 1998. Since there was no record in the judicial record room, it was not easy to challenge the judgment but it was revealed from the institution Register of 1991 that suit no. 539 of the year 1991 was never instituted as per the institution register. On the basis of this evidence, the case was registered against the accused-petitioner. That now in order to destroy the only available evidence i.e. institution register the interested party has managed the disappearance of institution register from the ld. Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hoshiarpur. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hoshiarpur, Criminal Appeal No.6342-M of 2005 -4- **** brought the factum of loss of institution register to this Hon'ble Court vide letter No. 526 dated 3.3.2007 addressed to the Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiapur, vide his endorsement No. 1873 dated 6.3.2007 has directed the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hoshiapur to hold enquiry with regard to the loss of the register and report after fixing responsibility of the concerned official. The enquiry is still going on.” In the light of the above quoted (underlined) averments made in the course of counter, the facts were ordered to be ascertained from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, by FAX. It was so ordered because this Court felt that the averment that the relevant enquiry had been pending / proceeding for the last more than a year defied logic. The District Judge, Hoshiarpur, has informed that the enquiry report have been forwarded to this Court vide his office letter No. 9422 dated 22.11.2007. (“alongwith the quarterly statement regarding loss of judicial record in Subordinate Courts for the quarter ending 30.9.2007.”). He has otherwise furnished a photo-copy of the enquiry report. In the course of the finding, the Enquiry Officer ( Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur) held that “it is difficult to fix the responsibility of the particular official.” It was otherwise held by the Enquiry Officer that “from the statements of above concerned Criminal Appeal No.6342-M of 2005 -5- **** officials, it stands proved that on 25.8.04, register in question was returned to Sh. Talwinder singh Civil Ahlmad attached to this Court by Smt. Raj Kumari copyist after taking his signatures. He kept this register alongwith other registers which were lying open over the racks due to shortage of almirahs. He remained attached with this court till 5.10.04 and on his transfer, he handed over the charge to Sh. Raman Kumar. However, no physical verification was made at the time of taking over the charge by Sh. Raman Kumar who remained posted as Civil Ahlmad. After transfer of Sh. Raman Kumar, he handed over the charge to Sh. Santosh Kumar, Civil Ahlmad, but no physical verification was done either by Sh.Raman Kumar or by Sh. Santosh Kumar at the time of taking of charge. As per their statements, the register inq uestion remained lying in open due to shortage of Almirhas. Thus in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that in whose tenure register was lost. Register was dealt by Sh. Talwinder singh, Sh. Raman Kumar as well as Sh. Santosh Kumar but none of them actually verified the register in question as this register was not required in day to day proceedings of the Court.” Insofar as the FIR lodged in the context is concerned, learned State counsel informs that the challan has since been filed and is pending consideration for 15.11.2009. In the light of the facts noticed above, it is apparent that present FIR cannot be quashed because the challan had already been filed and the matter is pending consideration at the hands of Criminal Appeal No.6342-M of 2005 -6- **** learned Trial Court. However, in order to allay the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial may not get inordinately delayed, it is directed that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the trial within six months from the next date of hearing. The Criminal Misc. Petition is dismissed accordingly. September 15, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE