Jai Singh vs Nand Lal and anr.

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This is a petition under Section 4,82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceedings in First information Report No. 32 dated 3.2.1983, Police Station, Gohana, District Sonepat, for offences under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Nand Lal respondent filed a complaint in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghohana, on 8.9.1982 against the petitioner and another. The learned Magistrate on 8.9.1982, recorded the following, order

"Presented by Nand Lal. Be registered. To come up on 14.9.1982 for statement of complainant and P.E (Preliminary evidence)".

On 14.9.1982, the learned Magistrate recorded statement of Nand Lal as PW 1 and received in evidence documents Marked I to 11 and the following order :

"Present : Complainant with Shri Rajinder Singh Statement on oath the complainant has been recorded. The complaint along with the documents and statements of the complainant etc. be sent S.H.O. P.S. Gohana for further investigation under Section on 156(3). Be consigned to the record room, after due compliance."

The police returned the file to the learned Magistrate without any action. but the learned Magistrate on 12.10.1982 sent back the complaint again to the Station House Officer, with the following order:

"In the above noted case file is being sent to you again for investigation as required under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and then proceed according to law."

On this order the police registered the above mentioned first in information report, arrested the accused and after investigation presented the challan.

Thereafter, the learned Magistrate framed a charge against the petitioner under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner feeling unhappy with the framing of charge, filed a criminal revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, for dismissal of the complaint. In the Court, the parties appeared. a compromise was effected and the learned Sessions Judge, passed the following order on 5.9.1983.

"Arguments heard. Case compromised as per statements of parties and their counsel. In terms of the compromise the respondent is granted time upto 5101983 to pay the balance price of Bus No. DLP 6231 Rs. 30.000/ together with interest as per stipulation made in the agreement to sell in Court failing which the revision petition shall be deemed to have been accepted. To come up on 5.10.1983."

On 5.10.1983, the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order :

"Jai Singh v. Nand Lal

Present : Petitioner and respondent with their counsel.

P.P. for the Statement of respondent No. 1 recorded vide which he has deposited Rs. 30,000/ in FDR/SBI in the name of the Court through Nazir for a period of two months. He shall now produce the receipt regarding the clearance of the outstanding taxes pertaining to the bus in question, if any, on 20.10.1983, on which date the case shall be adjourned for NOC by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 shall be bound by his statement upto date in regards to challan case. if any, pertaining to the bus during the period it remained in his possession and withdrawal of the case under Section 420, I.P.C. etc. pending trial in the Court of SDJM Gohana."

On 6.1.1984, the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order :

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the revision petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn. The amount deposited by the respondent through Court shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest accrued on it. The parties shall be bound by their statements and shall perform all for malities connected with the registration of the bus in question and its production at Delhi. The petitioner shall not incur any criminal liability for having executed the documents of transfer of the bus in favour of the respondent."

In spite of the fact that some compromise was effected in the Court of Sessions, the parties still continued to pursue the litigation and this petition was filed on 16.5.1986 for quashing the first information report and the proceedings.

Even in this Court, the parties continued to talk if a compromise S.S. Sodhi, J. before whom the case was pending passed the following order on 6.5.1987.

"During the course of arguments, Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, appearing for respondent Nand Lal, stated that Nand Lal would have no objection to the petition being allowed if the registration book of the bus and NOC., after it has been granted by the authorities concerned, is given by the petitioner to Nand Lal.

Mr. R.S. Ghai, appearing for the petitioner seeks an adjournment to hand over the registration book to the counsel for respondent No. 1 and also to apply for, the NOC. He states that in case the original registration book is not available with the petitioner, a duplicate copy of the same shall be obtained and made available to the counsel for the respondent. Adjourned to May 20, 1987.11.

On 20.5.1987, the learned Judge passed the following order :

"Mr. Ghai. states that according to the information available with the petitioner. who is present in Court, the registration book of the bus is with the challan papers in the, Court at Gohana. If this is so, it would be open to the respondent to apply for return of this registration book to him and the petitioner would raise no objection to it. If, however, the registration book is not available there, then the petitioner undertakes to apply for a duplicate copy thereof and to supply it to the respondent.

The matter regarding the NOC will be considered at the next date of hearing. At the request of the counsel for the parties, adjourned to July 17, 1987."

In spite of the above orders, the compromise did not materialise and learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments on the merits of the case.

The main contention of Mr. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate as is apparent from the orders passed by him, has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 190A, Criminal Procedure Code, after presentation of the complaint and he had recorded the statement of the complaint on oath, received in evidence documents marked 1 to 11 and having done this, the learned Magistrate was not competent to send the complaint to the police under Section 156 Criminal Procedure Code. He has cited in this regard Devara Palli Lakshminaryana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy and others, 1976 SCC.(Cri.) 380. Mr. Hooda learned counsel for the respondents has not contested and states that legally the learned Magistrate was not competent to get the case registered under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, after having taken cognizanze in the complaint. As Mr. Hooda has conceded the legal position, this petition is accepted. The orders of the learned Magistrate dated 14.9.1982 and 12.10.1982, whereby he had directed the police to register a case under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, are quashed and all the proceedings subsequent to registration of the case taken by the police as a consequence thereof are also set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed according to law in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the complainant. He shall record the preliminary evidence if the complainant produces the same and after recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate shall decide whether the petitioner is to be summoned or not.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed.