IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.19368 -M of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 2, 2011 RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GS Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.107 dated 4.5.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Pundri, District Kaithal (Annexure P-1). 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petition on behalf of Rajinder Singh-petitioner No.1 be dismissed as withdrawn. 3 The petition is dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of petitioner No.1. 4 The allegations made in the FIR lodged at the instance of Harjeet Singh, respondent No.2/complainant, are to the effect that the complainant is permanent resident of Village Habri, Criminal Misc. No.19368 -M of 2009 (O&M) 2 Police Station, Pundri, District Kaithal, and has a passport. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are known to the brother of the complainant and had knowledge that the complainant was a passport holder. Petitioners No.1 and 2 visited the house of the complainant in Village Habri and induced the complainant and his brother that if the complainant is willing to go abroad, necessary action would be taken and a job would be provided in a Multi National Company in Europe, for which the complainant would have to pay ` 9 lacs and give his passport. The complainant was also induced by way of saying that if more than one person is asked to join, a concession of ` 1 lac will be given and on payment of ` 17 lacs, both the persons would be sent abroad. 5 In the first week of December, 2007, the three petitioners/accused visited the house of the complainant at Village Habri and demanded ` 5 lacs as advance with passports, so that the work permits for doing job in a construction company could be provided to both the complainant and one Prince Pal, who joined the complainant to go abroad. On such assurance advanced by the petitioners, a sum of ` 5 lacs along with the passports of the complainant and Prince Pal were given to the accused at Village Habri. A promise was made to pay another sum of ` 8 lacs at the time of boarding flight and remaining ` 4 lacs when the complainant and Prince Pal reached Italy. 6 It has further been alleged that, thereafter, the accused delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly, on 15.1.2008, the accused visited the house of the complainant Criminal Misc. No.19368 -M of 2009 (O&M) 3 and told him that the flight for Europe is to go on 19.1.2008. A demand for ` 8 lacs was made. A sum of ` 7 lacs was arranged by the complainant, Prince Pal and their brothers and handed over to the accused in the presence of witnesses named in the FIR. The complainant and Prince Pal reached Delhi. All the accused asked for the remaining amount of ` 4 lacs, which was to be paid after the complainant and Prince Pal had reached Italy. The complainant and Prince Pal refused to pay the amount. Thereafter, a demand for ` 30,000/- was made. Prince Pal asked his brother Prabhjeet Singh, who is already in Belgium (Europe), to deposit ` 30,000/- in the account of petitioner No.1- Rajinder Singh, which was deposited the same day. 7 A flight to Indonesia was arranged for the complainant and Prince Pal on 21.1.2008. Upon reaching Indonesia, a person named Ahmed met the complainant and Prince Pal, who after getting the passports of the complainant and Prince Pal on 24.1.2008, showed the Visa of Europe to the complainant on 1.3.2008 and told that the flight would be arranged in five days. The said person, however, did not come back for many days. The complainant contacted petitioners No.1 and 2 on telephone, who assured that a flight would be arranged very soon. 8 Be that as it may, agent of the accused arranged for a Visa to Malaysia and China. The complainant and Prince Pal reached Malaysia and when they were to start their journey from Malaysia to Italy, they were apprehended by the Immigration Authorities of Malaysia and were detained for two Criminal Misc. No.19368 -M of 2009 (O&M) 4 days and, thereafter, deported to India on 7.5.2008. 9 After reaching India, the complainant and Prince Pal and their brothers contacted the accused several times for returning the amount, however, the matter was delayed by the accused on one pretext or the other and subsequently, threats were advanced that if action is initiated, they would face dire consequences. 10 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the court at Kaithal would have no jurisdiction in the matter because petitioners No.1 and 2 are residents of Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for petitioners No.1 and 2 to go to Kaithal. 11 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12 A perusal of the FIR, gist of which has been noticed above, indicates that the allegation of inducement of the complainant, assurance given by the accused to the complainant of sending him abroad and making payment of money, have all been shown to be in Village Habri, Tehsil Pundri District Kaithal. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, while dealing with this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be held that the court in District Kaithal has no jurisdiction. 13 On second count, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties entered into a compromise, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The entire amount was handed over to the complainant and, Criminal Misc. No.19368 -M of 2009 (O&M) 5 therefore, nothing remains pending. 14 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 15 Learned counsel for the complainant and respondent- State have seriously disputed the fact that the complainant ever entered into a compromise with the petitioners. It has been said that the original document has never been produced so as to verify its genuineness. Rather, in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State, it has been said that the petitioners were asked to produce the original document so that signatures of the complainant could be verified in furtherance of investigation. The petitioners/accused, however, did not produce the original document indicating the compromise. 16 Considering the stand taken on behalf of the Investigating Agency, this Court is of the considered opinion that no finding can be recorded that the compromise is genuine and that the disputes have been settled at the instance of the complainant. In case, the bona fide of the petitioners were clear and the documents indicating compromise were genuine, the same could have been produced before the Investigating Agency to enable it to verify their veracity. The documents having not been produced, a suspicion is raised as regards the conduct of the petitioners. 17 On the third count, it has been argued that a civil suit has been filed, which indicates that the issue is of civil nature and, therefore, the proceedings on the criminal side be quashed. 18 I have considered the contention of the learned Criminal Misc. No.19368 -M of 2009 (O&M) 6 counsel for the petitioners. 19 The civil suit has been filed by the petitioners. The petitioners cannot take any benefit of a civil suit having been filed by them and, then, to plead that the matter has, now, become civil in nature. In any case, a perusal of the FIR indicates, prima facie, commission of criminal offences, as alleged and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 20 Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that petitioner No.3 is a housewife and has nothing to do with the entire controversy. 21 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 22 In view of the fact that specific role has been ascribed to petitioner No.3, the proceedings as against the said petitioner cannot be quashed only on the contention that she is a housewife. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavit and counter affidavit to record a conclusion that petitioner No.3 was not involved in commission of the alleged offences. 23 Petitioner No.1 did not appear before the trial court and has been declared a proclaimed offender. Considerable delay in the trial, on that count, has been caused. 24 There are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated and decided in this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. 25 In view of the above, the petition is dismissed being Criminal Misc. No.19368 -M of 2009 (O&M) 7 bereft of any merit. 26 However, in view of the fact that petitioner No.3 is a housewife, her personal appearance before the trial Court shall remain exempted on the following conditions:- i) she shall be represented by a counsel before the trial court; ii)she shall not dispute her identity as accused; iii)she shall have no objection if the evidence is recorded in her absence; iv)she shall come present before the trial court as and when required; and v)she shall comply with any other condition(s) that may be imposed by the trial court. August 2, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?