Bharpur Singh Brar vs State of Punjab

Jag Bhushan Garg, J.

On 3.9.1987 FIR No. 93 has been registered at Police Station Dayalpura for offences under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint made by Dr. Balwant Singh against Bharpur Singh Brar and Surjit Kaur. The investigation has been completed and challan has also been presented before the Court. At this early stage, the present petition has been moved by Bharpur Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it has been prayed that the FIR be quashed.

Briefly, the facts as given in the petition are that Dr. Balwant Singh is a RMP and is residing at village Bhagta Bhaika and his one son is a doctor in England and younger one Surinder Pal Singh is a graduate and was unemployed and was in search of a job. In April, 1982, Bharpur Singh accused, now petitioner met him and assured that: he would get, Surinder Pal Singh appointed as an Excise and Taxation Officer in Punjab but in lieu thereof, the complainant, would have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/. After a week Bharpur Singh told that not only Rs. 1,00,000/ but a further sum of Rs. 10,000/ was also required and the complainant agreed to this proposal and he borrowed various sums of money from Kehar Singh, Joginder Singh, Jalore Singh, Ajmer Singh and Sukhminder Singh and also added a sum of Rs. 16,500/ from his own account of State Bank of India, Ludhiana and handed over the money to Bharpur Singh. However, the job. was not arranged and on the one hand the complainant continued to remind Bharpur Singh and on the other hand Bharpur Singh also continued reassuring that he would the needful done and that there was postponement of interviews for one reason or the other that in reality Bharpur Singh and Surjit Kaur had defrauded the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/ On these allegations, the present case was registered at Police Station Dayalpura on 391987.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that the facts mentioned in the FIR do not constitute an offence and notwithstanding that a challan has been presented in the Court, it would be a kind of mock trial if it is allowed to proceed and the complainant should not have been encouraged to do so. It has also been pointed out that the proceedings under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code are barred by time. There is also a plea that the complainant has hatched up a story in a hurry and it could not be convincing that he could collect more than rupees one lac on his own and the complainant is a kind of tool in the hands of some persons including a few officers who had old strained relations with the accusedpetitioner.

It has been further argued that he had been a Sarpanch of the village for a decade and also remained Chairman of the Block Samiti, Malout in district Faridkot for several years and there was enmity in the village on account of the murder of S. Sham Singh Brar, the petitioner''s father and there were other murders and crosscases and that is why he shifted from District Faridkot to Chandigarh and the complainant has come forward to the Court at the instance of a retired DIG of police. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there are decrees of large sums of Civil Courts, pendifig against this accused there have been cases under Sections 392 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code etc. in 1968, 1971 and 1976 and even thereafter and not that the present complainant had any other object except seeking whatever relief to which he may be entitled. It may, however, be observed that it is not the stage to look into the alleged antecedents of the accused. The allegations and the counterallegations regarding antecedents do not appear to be material for decision of the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to State of Karnataka v. IL Muniswamy and others, 1978 CLR 39, wherein it was observed that the material on which the prosecution, proposes to rely was wholly inadequate. However, it was a case for offences under Sections 307, 326 and 324 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. In the aforesaid hurt case, it appears that the accused were not noticed near the scene of occurrence at the time of the assault. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, 1983(1) Recent CR 73 referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts were altogether different inasmuch as the prosecution of Managing Directors of M/s.Upper Ganges Sugar Mills was not considered appropriate.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Sunil Oberoi and anr. v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) Recent CR 175 , wherein the allegations were that there was fraudulent inducement to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/ without intending to sell the car to the complainant. It was not considered to be a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As regards the delay in lodging the FIR the learned counsel for complainant has pointed out that Bharpur Singh had been sending communications including telegrams from time to time mentioning that the interview/selection has been postponed. Copies of some of the telegrams have been placed on record. The objection regarding limitation in respect of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code shall be looked into by the trial Court at the stage of framing the charge. As regards the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code also, the mind is to be applied by the trial Court and mere delay in lodging the FIR may not be sufficient to quash the proceedings. Though the facts and circumstances are altogether different, yet Mangilal Vyas v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(1) Recent CR 381 , has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent to stress that delay itself should not be the sole ground in challenging the prosecution which is the outcome of regular investigation by more than one Police Officer. The conclusion is that the petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. The parties shall appear in the trial Court on 441990.