Rajinder Singh Bhullar v. Ranjit Singh
!"#$#%&& ' ( % !"# ) !" " ' ' !"#*#&%+&,* - #) #.%#&,* - # ) /// "# !$ % 0#) #)) # #% 12&") ) % !
# 3&' % ,4 5# 6 ' 7 8"9%#"%33" 4 5 *:% ' ) 12 & * &#;% &" ,!*!" #& 3& 3)& 5<
4 & % !
$#=' +&& 5
*:% ' ) 12& * & !;% ",!*!" #&- +## -)& "# 3#1 3 $ &2,# ##;" !"#,# # ) 3)& #% 3&2. &.% ,$#%) .% *3 .% &2 + & 3% "8& 3 &1 "
.#+.# 4> 4.# >>>>4,> >5 , > 4, .5# 6 )&7 # )& 3% "< 3 & 1 " .#+ .# 4> 4 .# 4 , 45 ,
>>
>> # 6 )&7 % (&&" !##3 ,0#&.# , #& 0#& +9%&&2 - 1+ ;" !"# # # 1238"#3+ 8& 3 & # 3 53 &#& ;" !"#&"+##% & &8&#& - % & 4*:% ' , < 4 4*:% '<, < 4 4*:% ' 4 4 *:% ' 0# ,;" !
"# #% :% " & )+ 2-% #) 3"3# 3" & 08" -"#3,#) & 8&& - *"# - " & 5 4 4%# )&,+#& &2 3 &+ 3"% + #);" !"# #% 0#) && <3 &# )&= .% - " & < 44, +#& & 3 % # + #) 0# # # ) ;" !"# 44 , #+- ,#) & 5?3 &%# )& .
!%&2)%,% # 3&) 2## +##@&9 '+ #0#& ,#) & 3 &:& 123 &"
+## -% - "## ;" !"#-% # % "prima facie"#) ,#& & % % %33" 4 5 "#3 *"" - 12#
5
3,#) & -1 #& &+ *))&&% +##+ 3 - 5
< A %& #) inter alia ##&&" & + :% #2 4 4 44 #) #1 %33 &% - 4 5 )
2 ,+## "3) 2 &- % * & # %= 0#3)&# ) 3+"12&" # 3&3)&9%#2 #&&" & :% #2 4 4 44%& 1#&&" #-&% 1"1 12&3 =)% &2-& )%,+##"-&% 3&) % =% # #,## 3)& # % # & # # - - % & # ) ,1")+ 2,+& &&&2 8&
3 && ,%+##,#& 8&- *"# <3 & & = .% * :%# +& ,#& &1# + 3 & # ,#&&"##:& +& , +%&&2 =& #" !
=' 3 %# %3#) ,#3)& sans2)&&"## + ##) # ) 3#- 2)## ) 3)& =%)) #,# &%)#&&+" % "3@71&!%) 3 % +&&#%
3)&& % !5 =' &2<2 +9%#
&'(&) *+,&- ./! "0&01 23 &4&-&/40-&&'52041-/#-6,6'&7 881&72! 923
51:65152'
!
!
!
3&) "% ! 4,
='+ 9%# # + &2
2 -" 2 & 5!;-&46,&'52041-/./!"0&01 23 64&- &'5 &'2041-# -6,6'&7 =#% &&"#) ) 2 3)&+ ,#)% #
881&72!9<23
<51:65152'
!
<!
<!
+# + # # + , # , 3)& & 12 # + % !
='+9%# 41-,&= 6,6015 &'5 2041-/ ./!
*!!24'>&'52041-/$ % " =# #%" &2 - ) &3-&&+, 3& ) "1 =# 1 # @71& !%) 3 % , 3)&+& #2 +#& &&" )%) #) 3 44544
118&(&;&&'52041-/./!"0&01 23 00&- -&51/4 &'5 &'2041-# -6,6'&7881&72! 23
51:65152' = ))&2!
='3&2 #" #&2 %" &- 2 ) ) 2,#" !
=' #- 1 *1 &36 #27,6 % %&7 6& %37 1# #"
!&,&:4&'5-&&2./!"0&0123 *&-'&0&(&
$ % $-6,6'&7% '+ % !
' &21: 9%#" 3& ) "#2 3) " &" % 1 )) - %+ "+:4&"6'?4&''&'5&'2041-./!
"0&0123 +')&;&'52041-/ $% $-6,6'&7%9!
B=& " #2 4 #&&" % # 2 9%&) "+ 9%# #" % &2& " %31 2 ,+## # "# ) 2 &#% *&@&7)60 *&+- &'5 &'2041- ./!
"0&0123 +')&;&'52041-/# 2!
< 23 9 51:6515 2'
9!
!
!
-& )% &"" 3&& + "-&% 3&&"C B=9%# ' ,& %&)) " # ) %)) # 3)%" %33" 4 5 12 "##) # 3% #)+ 2:% #-% -+## -%& & #:& 12- "#3-% % # # 3)& 0# , # ) # 33 % %)#3)& #%," !
=' 3 % =% # #&3) - % ! ! < ' 33 % !
=' # , #3)&1 12&3 D !
5 ' ,% #
)+ : #) &3 B% # 3 ,#&3 &2 9% " 8+& " 33 9% " 8+& ", # ) 3)& ) 3)&2 & 3)& " # ) # ,#& &% # "#&28"E# 3)&& 12# ) 3)& # 32# %33" 4 5 ,+##%1 #&&"1 # % =#-# & %& #) ) % # #+## 1&+&&#&+ * 3 &2,#& - 2+ :% #2 4 4 44 #) 3)&+& #2 ) &3
2 #3)%" %33"#) % &+) 2 # #2 ,&
2 #-&) :%#&&" & * & # %- "##% 1 ) &2,+##&% && ", " 3-" & ))& @+- ,+# #) 2 & &&" #-1 " ,#9% +## 9% 1 + F+# )1& # &2,+## #3)& #% =## ,#3)&#& "-)&%1& :)& +# ) - #3 3 & "" 3)& " # ) &3
2 0#%"## 1 &3) - % ! < ' 3)&% !
' ,#31 9%# : % % !
' #" % &2,#) " %:)& &2+%& 3%1%#) #% *+;% "$##@71& !%) 3%
! " #
$
<
% & ')8"# %"#;%$& 0 - ##& % "15. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy this Court had observed that the Court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
17. In the light of afore.stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent.complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants.accused." *+;% "$##@71&!
%) 3% ( %) )8"# %"#;%* #.%3 G	%# 3)& & % !5 =' <2 B&&+"+1 - H17. It is thus clear from the above observations that mere delay in completion of proceedings may not be by itself a ground to quash proceedings where offences are serious, but the court having regard to the conduct of the parties, nature of offence and the extent of delay in the facts and circumstances of a given case, quash the proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the court.
18. In the present case, the conduct of the complainant can certainly be taken into account. Admittedly, the complainant stood convicted in a cross.case. At least for ten years after commencement of the trial, the complainant did not even bother to seek simultaneous trial of the cross.case, the step which was taken for the first time in the year 2005 which could certainly have been taken in the year 1995 itself when the trial against Respondent 2 commenced. Having regard to the nature of allegations and entirety of circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to permit Respondent 2 to proceed with a complaint filed 16 years after the incident against the appellants." 0#@71&!%) 3% 12& % &) #3)# 3 "#) 2 &##% 3& "#& &1 2# * & #% 0#% ) # * ) + ,
- < 4 5+#&9%#"#B=& % ! 5<, $=' ! ,
,
<,
=' & +# #-"+ ) " &3 # 2 ,##& % "5.....It is no longer res integra that the fundamental concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that the right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The speedy trial would cover in its sweep investigation, trial, appeal etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court. No citizen can be deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Seven Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Menka Gandhi Vs.
procedure must be reasonable, fair. The right to speedy trial undoubtedly flow from this concept of fairness. It was observed that any procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial, it would fall foul of Article 21 and the right to speedy trial is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
* & " $#!-;% " #@71&!%) 3% .)
. per majority##& % "No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law declares Article 21 of the Constitution. Life and liberty, the words employed in shaping Article 21, by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, are not to be read narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries; they are organic terms to be construed meaningfully. Embarking upon the interpretation thereof, feeling the heart.throb of the Preamble, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of State Policy and alive to their constitutional obligation, the Courts have allowed Article 21 to stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately can.
The mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re.trial in short everything commencing with an accusation and expiring with the final verdict the two being respectively the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem of the journey which an accused must necessarily undertake once faced with an implication."
5 0#" %"#"% !
=' % ! =' #3 ) % % /0
#1Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to
4
any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation. - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
0# & " 33 #" ) %3 &- 2) ) 22) # 2) #&& 2) ) 2 0# 3%1 %) 3 2#"+###+%& 3#+ - , # 3% &8&2% 3" # 3 #) 1 2,3 , )% ) ) 2 0# #" #+##) # # 3#- 2) # - 2) % %&&2 #&2 &- 2) ) 22 ) =## , 3 ##) +"- G &'+ * 2 3""#& ## #3)& #&&""#3 ##& :& ### # # -+# -%&- *"# = .
% - & 5 4 4 4 < 44 0# # # ) 3)& 44 :%# & #+# #3)& &-&& 2&&"## ) 2+2+1 2#& # & # #&&"#+#&&&"#& )%,# ) #33 % %)#- - = .% = #-%&2,#- - = .
*:% ' ) % % "6...And as such, the accused Rajinder Singh has played a fraud with Devedas and Smt. Inderjit Kaur to whom he has sold 12M land excess vide registrered sale deed 13.09.89 and 16.10.90 respectively with the connnivance of Halqa Patwari, who has given the clear jamabandi by showing the 12M land as stand in the name of father of the applicant and his cousin sisters whereas, no any balance land was left of the cousin sisters of the father of the applicant.
*+;% "$##@71&!%) 3% 2 3, )( %) )8"# %"#;% ( - ##& % "14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co. accused.
It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code."
< 0# "%3 12# ) 3)&##&3 1: % !
5 ' # ,# 3 &1 %"# ##& ))&1 #& &% : 2%#&3 2 #& &% ## #&"## 2
*) %&# # -&##3)&# "-&% 3&) %# )%,+##)% &2-&% - -& 3 # 18+#3 0# 3)&%) +%
2 #&&" % =" 3&) " )% &2-& )%, &)&3# )) 3 &2 1 %3 # 3 0# %&2 &2 & % %1+# )#" 2#% %%#) "+%& &2) 3#%) - - , % &2 #)) # &2-&# "## % &1%&%% %# 3# )% &3, 38"# : #&#) % )&2 0# ) %1&&+ 8% %1#-&1&&"& 3 3 &2% # +3&%" *+;% "1##@71& !%) 3% 4 +5#+5.6 )
2023 Cri.L.R.(SC) 874,)8"# %"#;% !###1 - &&+
"9. Article 21 of the Constitution protects lives and personal liberties of both the victim and those accused of having committed an offence. For this reason, the procedure established by law should be construed in the manner that the text of the statute ensures right to seek investigation to redress injustice and uncover crime by recourse to expeditious, fair and impartial
procedure. Concomitantly, the law in application should protect blameless against those informants who levels false allegations and abuse the law causing distress, humiliation and damage to reputation."
0# , #%# # 1 ) )&%3 1-,#% - ##) ) 7%& "# " % * & #% -& 4 %&&2,#%33" 4 5 *:% ' ) 12#& * &#;% &" ,!*!" #&, 5
*:% ' ) 12#& -&% 3)& 5<
4 % !
, $=', 9%# 0#) &&+ 1- 3 $ "% 1;-+&-> #
'8 / I## )8"> J> I## ) 1& J>