Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Criminal Misc. No. 3920M of 1990 has been filed by Gurdeep Singh petitioner for quashing First Information Report No. 196 dated 28th September, 1988 registered against him in Police Station, Sidhwan Bet (Annexure P1) and the criminal prosecution based thereon pending against him in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon District Ludhiana in terms of charge Annexure P3 on the grounds that in respect of the same liability Registrar, Cooperative Societies, has already given his award against him as arbitrator and that the criminal prosecution against him is inordinately delayed for 10 years.

In reply the making of the award in respect of the allegedly embezzled amount is conceded and it has been admitted that criminal breach of trust in respect of it was committed by the petitioner in 1980.

It has been held by this Court times out of number in Janak Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1979 Chandigarh Law Reporter 236; Harbhagwan Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 156 and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 507, "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in my view, this petition deserves acceptance. The award of arbitrator is in the nature of a decree which can be executed in a Civil Court. The matter which culminated in the award has, therefore, assumed characteristics of civil nature and the taking of criminal proceedings against the defaulter regarding the same matter must be held to be abuse of the process of the Court in spite of the fact that the jurisdiction of Criminal Court to initiate such proceedings cannot be disputed. Similar view has already been taken by the court in Janak Rai v. State of Punjab''s case (supra).

Learned counsel appearing for the State has referred me to the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in Laxmi Narain v. State of Haryana, Criminal Revision No. 245 of 1979 decided on 25th March, 1981 and urged that the making of the award by the arbitrator was no bar to initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for embezzlement of the amount covered by the award. I have carefully gone through the authority cited. Inordinate delay of over 8 years in launching the prosecution is itself sufficient to describe the First information Report and the resultant criminal prosecution based upon it as an abuse of the process of the Court. The authority cited by the respondentState does not, therefore, help it.

For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid First Information Report are quashed.