Criminal Revision No. 1545 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1545 of 2004 Date of Decision: 10.3.2010 Gurvinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) This is a case where the accused had made an attempt to over-reach the Court and was caught. The only question, which this Court has to determine, is as to whether the harassment, mental pain and agony of protracted trial and sentence are commensurate or proportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner. A serious issue was raised as to what offence was made out against the petitioner. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he will not press the argument as to whether the petitioner had been rightly tried or what offence had he committed, in case the petitioner is given an opportunity to reform himself and adopt the path of rectitude. This Court is inclined to accept the prayer made by Criminal Revision No. 1545 of 2004 2 learned counsel for the petitioner that an opportunity should be given to reform him, therefore, will not go into the minute details and determine as to what offence is made out. Briefly stated, the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar, restraining them to demolish the boundary wall of plot measuring 175 square yards. The suit was contested and was dismissed. The petitioner had again filed a civil suit for the same cause of action and submitted an affidavit that no earlier civil suit was filed. The petitioner had obtained ad interim injunction. When the counsel for Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar, appeared, and brought it to the notice of the Court that earlier, the civil suit was filed and was dismissed. The Court had rightly expressed its anguish and submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, for registration of case under Section 468 IPC. The complaint submitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, was treated as an FIR and case FIR No. 160 dated 28.9.1994 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, under Section 468 IPC. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, had come to a conclusion that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 468 by forging an affidavit dated 15.9.1993 with an intention to cheat Amritsar Improvement Trust, and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Criminal Revision No. 1545 of 2004 3 Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, by upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence, vide judgment dated 21.7.2004. PW.1 Harjinder Singh had proved filing of the two civil suits. PW.2 Rajinder Kaur, Steno of the Court, proved the complaint Ex.PA submitted by the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. PW.3 Dharam Pal had proved filing of two cases. What is required to be noticed by this Court is the testimony of PW.4 Chaman Lal Arora, Advocate, Notary Public. He had stated that the petitioner had signed the affidavits Ex.PW.4/A and Ex.PW.4/B, respectively, on 29.1.1990 and 25.1.1990, on identification of Kundan Lal, Clerk of D.S. Arora, Advocate. PW.5 Mr. C.D. Gupta, who was then posted as a Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, and had submitted the complaint Ex.PB and when he had appeared in the Court, he was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge. He admitted that no enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was held. D.M. Arora, Advocate, who had filed the suit, appeared as PW.5. From the above evidence, it emerges that the petitioner had sworn in wrong affidavits and had made wrong averments thereon. However, for this, it is difficult to say that an offence under Section 468 IPC is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no FIR could be registered, only a complaint could be filed by the complainant as there is a bar under Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. It was Criminal Revision No. 1545 of 2004 4 further submitted that holding of an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was necessary. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel relied upon a judgment rendered in State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and Another AIR 1998 Supreme Court 768 wherein it was held that FIR can be recorded, matter can be investigated by the police but thereafter complaint can be filed by the public servant or by the Court as the case may be. When this Court intended to examine these arguments at length, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1994 and the petitioner is already in the corridors of the Court for the last about 16 years. Even if this Court comes to a conclusion later that no offence under Section 468 IPC is made out, the case will be remanded to the Court below. Therefore, the petitioner will again be put to the long drawn legal battle. Learned counsel submits that it cannot be denied that the petitioner had sworn false affidavits and had made the Court to pass the interim order which was not due. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already been dealt with harshly as he has already undergone two weeks imprisonment and has been contesting the litigation since 1994. Learned counsel further submits that the suit was withdrawn, therefore, this Court may not undergo the exercise of examining the entire evidence and may not remand the matter but may provide an opportunity to the petitioner to reform and prove himself as a good citizen. This Court finds merit in the alternative submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court, after taking 16 years long Criminal Revision No. 1545 of 2004 5 litigation into view and substantial justice into consideration, is of the opinion that this chapter can be closed by asking the petitioner to maintain good conduct, behaviour and peace for a period of six months. Therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation. He shall furnish bonds to this effect to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. However, the petitioner cannot be allowed to go lightly. He is to be burdened with some costs. The cost of litigation in the facts and circumstances of the case, is assessed at Rs.20,000/- The same shall be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the cost is not deposited, no benefit of probation shall accrue to the petitioner. This order has been passed taking into consideration the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he will not contest the conviction. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 10, 2010 “DK”