Crl.Rev.No.90 of 2002 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.90 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 12 .01.2009 Raj Kumar Garg ......Petitioner Versus Ram Niwas Goyal and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate with Mr.Munish Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C” for short) challenging the order dated 5.7.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- II Fatehabad, whereby the revision petition was allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Judge, framing charge against the respondent, was set aside and the accused was discharged. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as noticed by Crl.Rev.No.90 of 2002 (O&M) 2 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad in para Nos. 2 and 3 of his judgment reads as under:- “Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint dated 29.8.1998 was submitted by complainant Mr.Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate, Tohana to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar for initiating criminal proceedings against accused-applicant Ram Niwas son of Chhabil Dass, resident of Barwala, District Hisar. It was mentioned in the said complaint that in the year 1992 the complainant was interviewed for the post of Assistant District Attorney. Thereafter, he had a talk in that connection with his uncle accused Ram Niwas Goel who was residing at Tohana for the last 25 years. The accused had assured to get the complainant appointed as ADA, provided that the latter paid him Rs.4 lakhs in advance. The latter could manage Rs.2.50 lakhs from his sources which amount was given to the accused on the assurance that the remaining amount shall be paid after the issuance of the appointment letter. At that time one Sushil Jain was also prosent. The result was out on 26.7.1992, and the name of complainant did not figure in that list of selected Crl.Rev.No.90 of 2002 (O&M) 3 candidates. Accordingly, he demanded the amount back from the accused. The latter replied that he would either get the work done or shall pay the amount back. The complainant had also applied for the 2/3 posts but in vain. The complainant kept on demanding the amount in question from the accused but nothing came out. However, the accused had issued a receipt dated 1.1.1994 to the complainant. Interest was payable @ 3% per month. 3.A bank draft dated 19.7.1996 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- was issued to the complainant by the accused. When the complainant raised demand for repayment of the balance amount, the accused refused to do so. Hence, a complaint was filed by the complainant, which was marked by the S.P. To the S.H.O., Police Station, Barwala for the necessary action.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in allowing the revision petition. The accused had committed a serious offence by taking Rs. Four lacs in advance from the petitioner on the assurance that he would get him selected as Assistant District Attorney. However, the petitioner was not Crl.Rev.No.90 of 2002 (O&M) 4 selected and the accused, thereafter, failed to re-pay the amount taken by him from the petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad allowed the revision petition and in para No.5 of his judgment held as under:- “I have considered the submission advanced by both the sides. Admittedly the complainant is a double graduate in that he is an Advocate of Tohana. If the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.4 lakhs from him for getting him appointed as A.D.A. which demand the latter had accepted, then in my opinion the complainant was also equally guilty because giving bribe too attracts penal action. Moreover it is admitted case of the parties that a receipt of Rs.2.50 lakhs dated 1.1.1994 was executed by the accused in which payment of the interest @ 3% per month is mentioned. It impliedly goes to show that an amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs was advanced to the accused by the complainant on interest. Had, as the story has been put forth by the complainant, been correct then of course in the said writing. Summary/past history of the said transaction/ deal would also have been got recorded but there is nothing of that sort in the writing Crl.Rev.No.90 of 2002 (O&M) 5 dated 1.1.1994. That being so, I am of the opinion that the launching of the criminal proceedings against the accused is nothing but a misuse and abuse of the process of the law. The learned trial Magistrate had committed an error in ordering charge sheet to be framed against the accused. This revision petition is accordingly, accepted as prayed for and the impugned order dated 20.5.2000 is hereby set aside. The accused stands discharged. Trial Court file be sent back and the file of the Court be consigned to the record room.” The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are good reasons. The petitioner was hoping to get a job as Assistant District Attorney after paying Rs. 4 lacs. This action of the petitioner in itself is bad. Money was allegedly paid in the year 1992, whereas, the complaint was lodged by the petitioner in the year 1998. As noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the receipt of Rs.2.50 lacs dated 1.1.1994 was executed by the accused in which payment of interest @ 3% per month was also mentioned. With regard to this receipt, the petitioner could have filed a suit for recovery within the prescribed period of limitation. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Fatehabad rightly held that launching of Crl.Rev.No.90 of 2002 (O&M) 6 criminal proceedings against the accused was nothing but was misuse and abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned order calls for no interference and the revision petition is dismissed as such. SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2009 anita