Crl. Misc. No. M-254 of 2011 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-254 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 5, 2011 Sukhdev Raj alias Kaka ........................................ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 96 dated 24.4.2004 (Annexure P-6) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Distt. Amritsar. Briefly the facts of the case are that one Deepak Kumar son of Sh. Kaka Ram had got a hotel shop, situated in the District Court Complex, Amritsar on lease for a period of one year commencing from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 in an auction conducted by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar by giving a highest bid of Rs.72,500/-; that further the said Deepak Crl. Misc. No. M-254 of 2011 [ 2 ] Kumar had given all his rights toward the hotel shop to Sukhdev Raj, petitioner by executing an agreement and a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. After the execution of the power of attorney, the possession of the hotel shop was delivered to the petitioner and as such he had started his hotel shop with an intention to earn some money for the survival of his family.Time and again the officials of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner therefore, the petitioner informed about this fact to the Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. Advisedly, the petitioner struck a deal for `10,000/- as part payment of amount of gratification and as such Rajinder Pal Singh, District Nazzar and Parminder Singh, Assistant District Nazzar, Amritsar were caught red handed and booked in a case FIR No. 30 dated 6.6.2003 under Sections 7 R/W 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. In order to take revenge from the petitioner for registration of FIR against the officials of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, the other officials of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, with a revengeful motive came to the hotel shop of the petitioner and demolished the shop property. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been compelled to approach this Hon'ble Court for the protection of his rights vide Criminal Misc. No. 30833-M of 2003, which was disposed off vide order dated 17.7.2003 with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to look into the matter and to take action in accordance with law. But as being a good relationship between Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar and Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, no action was taken up by S.S.P. Amritsar against the accused persons. The Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, got registered a case FIR No. 96 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Crl. Misc. No. M-254 of 2011 [ 3 ] against the petitioner alleging therein that false and fabricated documents have been prepared by the petitioner to file a civil suit against him in the civil Court, Amritsar. After registration of the aforesaid case, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Amrtisar, for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, directed the investigating officer to verify the factum of signatures of Deepak Kumar on the disputed power of attorney, on the basis of which petitioner had filed a civil suit against the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. It is pertinent to mention here that the signatures of Deepak Kumar was got verified from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and vide report dated 20.8.2004 the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, verified the signatures and concluded that disputed signatures required for thorough scientific examination and for definite opinion. The Investigating Officer under the influence of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, has presented the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner without getting any definite opinion report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the genuineness of the signatures. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as attorney of Deepak Kumar for running the hotel shop and for managing the affairs of the business and during that period only a case FIR was got registered against the officials of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar for demanding illegal gratification and were caught red handed. The petitioner had filed a civil suit against the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar being an attorney of Deepak Kumar, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of statement of Deepak Kumar. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal has placed reliance on Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. to contend that it debars the private party to take a criminal Crl. Misc. No. M-254 of 2011 [ 4 ] action against the accused person for producing the forged document in a proceeding in any Court. The petitioner had filed a civil suit against the Deputy Commissioner and the power of attorney had been relied in the civil suit. No criminal action against him could be taken once the document had been tendered in civil proceedings. This argument of the petitioner does not help him as the civil suit had been dismissed as withdrawn by Deepak Kumar on 9.1.2004. When the FIR was registered, no civil suit was pending and the civil Court had no power to initiate any action on a forged document submitted to it in a civil proceeding. All the other arguments which are being addressed, the petitioner can make before the proceedings in the trial Court pending in FIR No. 96 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others AIR 1992 SC 604 and Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 574, no ground is made out for quashing the aforesaid FIR. The criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. The petitioner had taken the shop to run business from Deepak Kumar on the basis of power of attorney given by Deepak Kumar. Deepak Kumar has withdrawn the civil suit filed by the petitioner. In view of the above, personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is exempted subject to the following conditions:- (i) petitioner shall be represented through counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute his identity as an accused; (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel; (v) shall appear before the trial Court as and Crl. Misc. No. M-254 of 2011 [ 5 ] when required by the trial Court; and (vi) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose. 5.1.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE