Criminal Misc. No.M. 36757 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M. 36757 of 2010 Date of decision 15.12.2010. Ghan Shyam and others ...... Petitioner. versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. K.C.PURI, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners under Sections 120-B, 182, 193 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – the IPC) titled as Court of its own motion versus Ghan Shyam and others pending in the Court of Shri Yogesh Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial under Sections 120-B, 182, 193 read with Section 120-B of the IPC vide order dated 19.3.2010. Criminal Misc. No.M. 36757 of 2010 2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad for seeking the compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident on 29.11.2006. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad after adjudication vide Award dated 17.11.2009 dismissed the petition with special costs of Rs.3000/- holding the petition as vexatious. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, came to the conclusion that petitioner had fallen from the bullock cart and lodged a false FIR in collusion with PW-2 to PW-4 and respondent No.1. The complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was sent by the Tribunal in which the present petitioners have been summoned. The said complaint as well as summoning order have been challenged by filing the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that complaint under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be filed before the court forming opinion that it was in the interest of justice to file complaint. To support this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon authorities Onkar Chand vs. State (UT of Chandigarh ) and others 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 265. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the records of the case. In the present case, the Court has given a categorical finding in the Award that petitioner-claimant has not suffered any injury but he in connived with respondent No.1 and witnesses have filed the claim petition. Since the Court has formed an opinion, therefore, the above said authority is not helpful to the petitioners. The Court itself has filed the Criminal Misc. No.M. 36757 of 2010 3 complaint, which goes a long way to prove that the Court has formed an opinion to file the complaint. Authority B.K.Gupta vs. Damodar H.Bajaj 2010(3)RCR (Criminal) 886 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also distinguishable on the facts of the case. The other limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. could be filed before the High Court and not before the learned District Judge by a Court of Land Acquisition Judge. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioners has cited authority State of A.P. vs. V.Sarma Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc. 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 146. However, the facts of the present case are totally distinguishable. In the above said case, Award in respect of land acquired was made by the Land Acquisition Collector. Reference of the award was made to the Civil Court at the instance of the owner of the land. Large scale fraud allegedly took place in awarding compensation wherein Subordinate Judge, the Staff, Advocates were involved. The matter was examined by the committee of High Court and inquiry was conducted by the learned District Judge at the direction of High Court. So, the facts of that case are totally distinguishable with the facts of the case in hand. Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of Cr.P.C. Clearly states that complaint in writing by the Court or of some other Court to which the Court is subordinate can file the complaint. In the present case, the court has made the complaint. So, there is no violation of Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of Cr.P.C. No other point has been urged before me. Criminal Misc. No.M. 36757 of 2010 4 In view of the above discussion, the present petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, nothing stated herein shall have any expression on the merits of the main case. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE December 15, 2010 sv