High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32129/2016dismissed

Rajesh Sharma v. State Of Punjab & ORS

2022-02-22Mr. Justice Sant Parkash11 pages

" #

# $ %&'&

())

* +

( , - )

. .

!"!#!$"% & ! !!'! !$"(

)* !!'! !$"( & ! ' !"!#!$"%

+ *

/.0

) -./.

0 122

- 2 2200 !$ ""

!$"3.2 * 20 " 2

2 2. 4 !"!#!$"%5 / . 2

4 !!'! !$"(5

2 6 & ! ' !"!#!$"%/ + 22022 "7 $'

!$"(/22$'

$% !$"%. 2 2 *0

/ 2 . /2 0 !$ ""

!$"3 !5 -

& 4

- & 80 2 ./

2 1 / 0 ( "#7"

. 2. -& 0 9: . ; $3 $"

"#7%) * & 2 0 & / 0 9: . .

2 . + . . !$$'

1 2 0 .2 !% '

!$"' / 2

, </20)22/ 2

= 2 .) * &

0 9: .

/.0 ) * &

. 2 -& 2>

/ /

4 & !"!#!$"%5 ?2 > & !-

& ', 0 2

+ 0

. 0 9: . . 0 @ -<A/ < .

0 9: ./2. B 0

) * & -< / 6 02 2.

2 2. 0 1 0// ;!% '

!$"' 2 /

</2 . ) * & / /2 2 < / .) * & 2.

8/ </ ;!3 '

!$"32 0 ./ / / .

/ 2

0 0

< .

. 02 < +

2 .2 22 0 1

2 .2202.

0 . "

$3 !$"' <

22 0

0 9: .

. ) * & / 20 2 2 2

* 4 5 82220 0 0 2 1

C 2 / 2

2 2

+<0 0B 0 2 . / 0

, 0/ !$ ""

!$"3

'$%D'%(D'%7D'("D"!$-1

00 . !$ ""

!$"3 / / 2/ . 2 2

"7 $'

!$"($'

$% !$"%20 !$ ""

!$"3. 2 2

E 2 4 !"!#!$"%5 /20 0 2. . 2/ . 2

220

0 . 2 $7 $!

!$"3

/ / 22/0 .2/ / .

2 .

*< 0*0 0

8 2 220 0 0 / 0 8:

0 $7 $!

!$"3 0 !3 $'

!$"3/2/ & !-

/ 2

.> & ', 0/ 2

= .

2 2 0 . . 2 / 0 8

2 < 220 0 . / 0 0 $7 $!

!$"3

E 2

4 !!'! !$"(5

22 2 / 0. 220 8

22 0 0 / 8

/ 0 2

./ 0

22 0 82

/2 2 82

4 "$5 2/

) * & / <002

E 2 .

2 2 !"!#!$"%

!!'! !$"(22

0 2 2 00

0 / 22

+ 8F2 2. 2

2 0

!/ /0

"# $

%& ' ()*)# #* + ) (

,( ,(* 2 2.6 2 0 22/0 "(i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(iii)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

+ (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

2 . /

2 .>

<22022./ / .) * &

8 0 2. 2 +22

= 2 2 /2 2 220 C"

. C! C3 220 +2 2 : BB

. <9:

C!D"/ /

2. 2 0 /29:

C"D) . 220 < + . 2

!( $!

!$"3 49:

C"D5 00

/ 2 0 20/

2 -

/ 2 < 2 . / 0 $7 $!

!$"349:

/!D"5

2 -

+ 2 .

!( $!

!$"3 </20

2 -

+ / 2 2 0 2.2 2. 2 02 .

'$%D'%(D'%7D'("D"!$-1

2/2

, 04 & !

' !"!#!$"%5 / 0

2 // . 2

./ /

& 2. 2 :

0 2 1 2. 2 2 $'

$% !$"%

".......Stress had been put on documents Ex. CW1/H and Ex.CW1/K which alleged to bear forged signatures of complainant but it is relevant to mention here that document Ex.CW/H is dated 31.5.2004 whereas the present respondents have been made as members of the society vide entry dated 8.2.2015, therefore, forgery of signatures on Ex.CW1/H cannot be imputed to them. Further the reliance has been put on Ex. CW1/K dated 14.4.2015 alleging that this document bears

forged signatures of the complainant and others. It is relevant that it is intimation or attendance sheet in which every member had put his or her attendance and therefore, the participating member cannot be made responsible for the forged signatures of any other members in the attendance-sheet, therefore, document Ex. CW1/K is not sufficient to prove prima-facie that the present respondents had committed forgery of signatures on this document.

Further, learned counsel for the revisionist had relied upon Ex. CW1/O which bears the signatures upon Ex.CW1/O which bears the signatures of the present respondents. This document Ex.CW/O is the proceedings of the meeting dated 25.4.2015 and there is nothing pointed out in this document to show that this is the forged document. Therefore, prima facie revisionst had failed to prove on record that the present respondents had committee forgery, therefore, they have rightly not been summoned by the trial court......"

1 2.

2 "7 $'

!$"( "Having heard the rival contentions of the respective parties and going through the record of the case, I am of the view that the present revision petition is having no merit. Since the respondent-complainant has filed the complaint and in support of his complaint, in his preliminary evidence, the respondent-complainant apart from examining himself, has also examined four witnesses including the documentary evidence. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the preliminary evidence, adduced on record, has come to the conclusion that a prima-facie case made out against accused No.1 to 4 so far as the offence under sections 406, 467, 468,471, 120-B IPC is concerned and accordingly opined that

there were sufficient grounds to summon the revisionist as accused to face the trial for the offences, enumerated above. Thus, there is nothing, by which, it can be said that the summoning order passed against the revisionist is suffering from any illegality or impropriety. Reading the complaint, as a whole, I am satisfied that it is the case where the contentions sought to be raised by the revisionist can only be dealt with after the conclusion of the trial and no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the Learned Trial Court while summoning the revisionist as accused. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is nothing illegal in the impugned order."

= 2 2/22 .

2/ / 20 60 2 2 0 )

.5 & 4,' 4 5 22.2 <0 -

2/ 0 0 2

2 2 22 . 2202 . 0 . 2/ + 0 2 2

4 !!'! !$"(5

. 2. .

2 .

0 2 0 2/

9 2 2 2 + . 2 2 0/ 2 0 .

2200

+ / 0

2 2/ 2/22 2 0

0 0 0 .

0 . 2. .

222

1/ 0 .

0 2 45 . 22 2

) ) 56'

/.8

# C <0D G9D&;

C 2 G9D&;