Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Serial No. 111 Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** The prayer in the present petition is for a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry and register an FIR against respondent No.4. However, as per the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu V. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) RCR(Criminal) 392, such a petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly the present petition is dismissed being not maintainable. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.1804-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.01.2008 Om Parkash .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Rajesh Bindal, J.(Oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition. Dismissed as withdrawn. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Review Application No. 16 of 2008 in CWP No. 11393 of 2000 Present: Mr.N.S.Jagdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. *** No ground for review of the order is made out. Under the garb of review, rehearing of the petition on merits is not permissible. Review application is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Review Application No. 17 of 2008 in CWP No. 11392 of 2000 Present: Mr.N.S.Jagdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. *** No ground for review of the order is made out. Under the garb of review, rehearing of the petition on merits is not permissible. Review application is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Review Application No. 19 of 2008 in CWP No. 11390 of 2000 Present: Mr.N.S.Jagdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. *** No ground for review of the order is made out. Under the garb of review, rehearing of the petition on merits is not permissible. Review application is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Review Application No. 20 of 2008 in CWP No. 11395 of 2000 Present: Mr.N.S.Jagdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. *** No ground for review of the order is made out. Under the garb of review, rehearing of the petition on merits is not permissible. Review application is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.1867-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.01.2008 Sukhwinder Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Rajesh Bindal,J.(Oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition to enable him to avail of his alternative remedy. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.1801-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.01.2008 Mehar Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Lalit Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Rajesh Bindal,J.(Oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition to enable him to avail of his alternative remedy. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.1745-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.01.2008 Ram Karan .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.H.S.Gill,Senior Advocate with Mr. S.L.Gopal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Rajesh Bindal,J.(Oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may be dismissed as withdrawn at this stage. Ordered accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No.M-42823 of 2007 Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.I.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Navneet Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sagar Deswal, Advocate for the complainant. *** On request of counsel for the State, adjourned to 13.2.2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No.M-46176 of 2007 Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.I.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Navneet Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sagar Deswal, Advocate for the complainant. *** On request of counsel for the State, adjourned to 13.2.2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No.M-50148 of 2007 Present: Mr.Chanakya Pandit, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Navneet Singh, AAG, Haryana. *** On request of counsel for the State, adjourned to 13.2.2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No.55089-M of 2007 Present: None for the petitioner. *** As per office report, service on the respondent is still incomplete. Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent for 24.3.2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.1744-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.01.2008 Hans Raj and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.J.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Rajesh Bindal,J.(Oral): Prayer made in the present petition is for protection of life and liberty of the petitioners, who had married against the consent of their parents. Both the parties are present in Court. Petitioners have appended the photographs of their marriage (Annexure P-3). As per certificate Annexure P-2 issued by Central Board of Secondary Education, the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is March 30, 1985 and she was more than 18 years of age on the date of marriage which according to the petitioners was solemnized on 18.1.2008. It is averred that since it was an inter-caste marriage, the father of petitioner No.2 i.e respondent No.4 was opposing it and, therefore, he, in connivance with the local police, has made their matrimonial life miserable and there is apprehension of registration of some false FIR against petitioner No.1. The petitioners have also apprehended Criminal Misc. No.1744-M of 2008 -2- threat to their life and liberty. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of their parents and as such they are fearing threat to their life and liberty. Accordingly the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to Superintendent of Police, Panchkula to see that in case there is any threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners, he should take appropriate action to protect the same. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1623-SB of 2007 Date of Decision: 23.01.2008 Malya Kumar Mandal .....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Rohit Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Navneet Singh, DAG, Haryana. *** Rajesh Bindal,J. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant being surety of an accused who absented himself from the Court. The only contention raised by the appellant is that he stood surety for Yoginder Singh alias Banty son of Sh.Gulab Singh Dubey in FIR No. 106 of 2005, under Sections 328 and 379 IPC, Police Station Kalka. The submission is that the accused had been regularly appearing in the case, however, on August 17, 2006 he absented himself. He was directed to be summoned through warrant of arrest. Proceedings against the appellant, being surety, were also initiated. The petitioner having came to know about this fact, moved an application before the learned Court below on March 26, 2007 stating that as per his knowledge accused Yoginder Singh had been Criminal Appeal No.1623-SB of 2007 -2- arrested in some other case and was confined in Central Jail, Ambala. Considering the fact, the learned Court issued production warrant of the accused to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Ambala for April 6, 2007. On that date he was produced in the Court and finally vide order dated August 30, 2007, he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that non- appearance of the accused on the date fixed was not wilful as he was arrested in some other case and when the appellant came to know about this fact, he moved an application and on his application when directions were given to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, he was produced in the Court which justifies his absence on the date fixed by the Court. He further submitted that ultimately he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Keeping in view these facts the prayer is that the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the State could not dispute the factual position stated by the appellant as the same is recorded in the zimni orders produced by the appellant in Court. Once the above noted facts are not disputed, in my opinion, no penalty is liable to be imposed on the appellant on account of non-appearance of the accused on the date fixed when he was in custody in another case. Accordingly the appeal is accepted. The impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant is set aside. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.79450-M of 2006 Date of Decision: 30.1.2008 M/s Sai Papain Limited and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.V.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. *** Rajesh Bindal,J.(Oral): The prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order dated August 5, 2002 summoning the petitioners to face proceedings initiated against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and further prayer is for quashing of complaint filed by respondent No.2-M/s S.S.P.Private Limited (for short the complainant-company) against the petitioners in which the summoning order dated August 5, 2002 has been passed. 2. The petition was initially filed on behalf of three petitioners namely petitioner No.1, the company, petitioner No.2, one of the directors and petitioner No.3, another director of the company. On January 8, 2007 when the petition came up for hearing, it was not pressed for petitioners No.1 and 2 and was only pressed for petitioner No.3 on the ground that she was not concerned with the affairs of the petitioner-company. Accordingly Crl.Misc. No. 79450-M of 2006 -2- the present petition is being considered only for petitioner No.3 Mrs. Annapurna Subramanyam, Director of M/s Sai Papain Limited. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of the complaint against the petitioner by respondent No.2-complainant-company, as stated in the complaint filed by it, are that the same is engaged in manufacturing and trading of all kinds of milk powder plant and other machines at Faridabad. In June 26, 2000 accused placed an order with the complainant-company for supply of spray dryers. As the complainant-company was having business dealings with the accused, the goods were sold on credit basis. The requisite goods worth Rs. 66,35,200/- were sent from the Faridabad unit vide invoice No. M-035 dated 31.3.2001. On the oral request of the accused persons, the bill was issued in the name of M/s Parthista Biotech Limited, Secunderabad. It is further alleged in the complaint that the said company (M/s Parthista Biotech Ltd.) had availed of the MODVAT benefits on the basis of bill No.M-035. On account of part payment, five cheques dated February 20, 2002 amounting to Rs. 24 lacs in total were issued by the accused. However, when presented for payment, the same were returned with the remarks “funds insufficient”. 4. Legal notice was issued on April 8, 2002 which was not replied to. In the circumstances the complainant-company filed complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrtuments Act read with Section 420 IPC. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad vide order dated August 5, 2002, directed summoning of the accused. After service of summons the petitioner No.2 Shri M.V.Subramanyam, who is residing at the same address Crl.Misc. No. 79450-M of 2006 -3- where the petitioner No.3 is residing, filed an application dated December 20, 2002 for recalling of the summoning order and his discharge. Nothing is available on record as to the status of that application. Copy of the reply to the notice dated June 7, 2004 sent by the complainant-company has been placed on record claiming therein that the accused had already paid a sum of Rs. 20 lacs to the complainant-company which had not been returned so far and there is accordingly breach of trust. Other document which has been placed on record by the petitioner is an FIR No. 68 dated 4.5.2005 under Sections 409, 420, 109, 417 and 426 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC against various persons including the Managing Director of the complainant-company. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint against the present petitioner deserves to be quashed for the reason that she is neither necessary nor proper party in the case as no allegation possibly could be levelled against her, she being not concerned with the day to day affairs of the company and also having not signed the cheques. He further submits that there are no allegations in the complaint against the petitioner. Accordingly the prayer is for quashing of complaint and consequently the impugned summoning order which according to her has been passed without appreciation of material on record in a casual manner. Reliance has been placed upon Sabitha Ramamurty and another V. R. B.S. Channabasavaradhya, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 296, Smt. Katta Sujatha V. Fertilizers and Chem. Travancore Ltd. And another, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 502 and Adalat Prasad V. Roop Lal Jindal 2004(7) JT 243. Crl.Misc. No. 79450-M of 2006 -4- 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the case in hand is not fit for quashing of complaint as such against the petitioner as on the basis of the material on record, it cannot be opined finally that she was not at all concerned with the affairs of the company and she should not be prosecuted as such. 7. The conduct of the parties is quite relevant in the present case. Admittedly the cheques were issued way back in the year 2002. The notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued by the complainant-company on April 8, 2002 which was not replied to in spite of service. The summoning order against the petitioners was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on 5.8.2002 and thereafter even an application for discharge was also filed by petitioner No.2, meaning thereby that all the accused were in knowledge of the proceedings pending before the Court below. In reply to notice, it is sought to be stated that in fact , the accused-company is to recover a sum of Rs. 20 lacs paid by it as advance to the complainant-company way back in the year 2000 but the same has not been paid. However, there is nothing on record that any proceedings were initiated by the accused-company for recovery of the amount or any other proceedings. All what is evident from record is one FIR got recorded on May 4, 2005. The allegations against the petitioner in the complaint are that on the request of the accused persons, the material was supplied. There is nothing on record to show as to who had signed the cheques. As per the petition, the address of the accused-company and its two directors is the same. From the facts on record I do not find that the prosecution in the Crl.Misc. No. 79450-M of 2006 -5- present case is frivolous or otherwise mala fide rather it is otherwise. The petitioners in the present case have been able to defeat the very object for which the provisions were added in the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint in the present case was filed in May 2002, summoning order was passed by the learned trial Court on August 5, 2002 and we are in January 2008 but still the trial is at initial stage. Mere fact that no reply to the notice was given by the petitioners, the stand taken for quashing cannot be termed to be bona fide. 8. In the circumstances mentioned above, I do not find this to be a fit case where prosecution of the petitioner No.3 need to be scuttled at this stage. However, the petitioner being a lady may apply to the learned trial Magistrate for exemption of her personal appearance and the same shall be considered and granted by the Court below on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit. Once the appearance of the accused is being exempted, the learned trial Court will also exempt personal appearance of the complainant on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit. 9. The present petition is dismissed, however, with a direction to the learned Court below to expedite the trial of the case. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 30.1.2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.55184-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 23.01.2008 Harbhajan Singh alias Goldi .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.P.C.Suman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. *** Rajesh Bindal,J.(Oral): The prayer in the present petition is for anticipatory bail in FIR No.77 dated 3.5.2007, under Sections 324, 326, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Lalru. The allegations in the FIR are that all the persons were mercilessly beaten up by a group of 30-35 young persons armed with hockey sticks, swords, iron rods and dandas etc. Grievous injury is attributed to the petitioner on the head of the complainant. The delay in addition of Section 307 IPC was merely for the reason that the doctor who had initially examined the injured had been transferred and second opinion was taken from Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Even though the petitioner was granted regular bail before Section 307 IPC CRM No. 55184-M of 2007 -2- was added, still in my opinion after addition of Section 307 IPC, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail seeing the nature of injury inflicted by him on the injured. Accordingly I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2308 of 2003 Date of Decision: .01.2008 Mander Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Ladi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Rajesh Bindal, J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda in revision filed by the respondent against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, in Criminal Complaint No. 16 of 15.03.1999, RT No. 131 of 31.5.2000, whereby the petitioners were discharged as no prima facie case was made out against them for framing charge under Section 500 IPC. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 500/120-B/148/149/506 IPC. The dispute as is stated in the complaint is on account of certain party faction in the Panchayat elections. Further basis for filing the complaint was that the petitioners had filed a complaint against the respondent before Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda on February 6, 1999 stating that the respondent is a lady of bad character. She was unmarried at the age of 40 Criminal Revision No.2308 of 2003 -2- and was running prostitution business in the village. The complaint was enquired into by the S.S.P., Bathinda and the allegations contained therein were found to be false. The false allegations levelled by the petitioners had made the life of the respondent miserable as it had become difficult for her to live in the village and get married. The dignity, reputation and character of the respondent were badly damaged. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate directed the summoning of the petitioners vide order dated November 2, 1999. After summoning of the petitioners pre-charge evidence was recorded. On a consideration of the application/complaint made by the petitioners before the police which was the sole basis for filing of the complaint by the respondent against the petitioners, the learned Magistrate found that the same does not contain any defamatory words against the respondent-complainant that she was running a prostitution business in the village or that she is a lady of bad character. The only allegation in the complaint was that the respondents, Arjan Singh and Kala Singh, are trouble makers who often level false allegations against the villagers. There is threat of breach of peace from these persons who always remain ready to enter into fight with co-villagers. Prayer was made for taking action against them. Keeping these facts in view, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated March 12, 2003, did not find sufficient material to frame charge against the petitioners and accordingly discharged them. Aggrieved against the order of discharge, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda who, vide order dated September 23, 2003, accepted the revision and while setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate, directed for framing of Criminal Revision No.2308 of 2003 -3- charge against all the accused and to proceed further in accordance with law. The only legal issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the discharge of the petitioners by the learned Magistrate amounted to acquittal and against an order of acquittal, no revision was maintainable as the only remedy available to the respondent was by way of filing leave to appeal before this Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon ------- (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January , 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita v Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of 2008 Present: Mr., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Ghengas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE January 23, 2008 sunita Crl.Misc. No. of