M.P. Singh Sahni vs State and Another

S.P. Garg, J.—M.P. Singh Sahni (hereinafter referred as the petitioner or accused) has preferred various petitions CRL.M.C.Nos. 3772/2003, 2444-45/2005, 54/2008, 2790/2000, 3773/2003, 3779/2003, 3781/2003, 3782/2003, 3784/2003, 3193/2005 and 3783/2003 for quashing of the various criminal proceedings initiated against him by Harnam Singh (hereinafter referred as complainant or respondent No. 2). Case of the complainant is that he is a highly qualified ex-banker having an experience of seventeen years. He was earlier posted at Senior Executive level in a Nationalized Bank. The petitioner and his wife Narider Pal Kaur Sahni engaged him to provide professional services in respect of non-delivery of 40,000 shares of M/s. Essar Gujarat Ltd. and for clearance of 11 FDRs with Kuwait International Finance Company (KIFCO). For that purpose, an agreement dated 22.07.1991 and irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 01.08.1991 were executed. Supplementary agreement dated 09.10.1992 was also executed. Again, an agreement/ memorandum of understanding dated 07.03.1995 and subsequent agreement dated 14.03.1995 were executed along with irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 18.05.1995 in his favour. He filed complaint with the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission; Civil Suit bearing No. 2436/1996 against M/s. Essar Gujarat Ltd. and incurred expenses from his pocket. Vide notice dated 22.10.1997, the petitioner through his counsel Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate cancelled the GPA dated 18.05.1995. He sent reply to the petitioner on 25.10.1997.

Petitioner''s case is that he is a Non Resident Indian and is residing in Kuwait for the last 30 years with his family. He is doing business in Kuwait. He had fixed deposits with Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), Bombay to the tune of US $8,23,348. The FDRs were pledged with Kuwait Investment Finance Company (KIFCO) against some loan. There were some dispute between him and KIFCO. To protect his interest, he secured the services of the complainant and agreement dated 22.07.1991 was executed whereby the complainant was to get 5% as professional fee on the amount realized in India. Subsequent agreement was also executed in which the professional fee was increased to 7% for clearance of one FDR No. 1798. The respondent No. 2 filed suit in 1993 after an inordinate delay. Since the respondent No. 2 was unable to protect his interest, he was forced to cancel GPA executed in his favour. Thereafter, the litigation started between the parties.

On 01.02.2013, the petitioner opted to address arguments without the assistance of his lawyer. The respondent No. 2 also opted to address arguments himself. Common arguments in all the petitions were addressed by both.

The petitioner urged that the respondent has implicated him in numerous false and frivolous cases. When he cancelled GPA executed in his favour, the respondent No. 2 started lodging false complaints on frivolous grounds. He did not commit any offence. Respondent No. 2''s only motive to file complaint cases against him was to extract money as he was unable to pursue those cases being an NRI residing in Kuwait. He did not forge any document. He had no intention to defame him any time. He had reposed confidence in him and had availed his professional services to get clear his FDRs and to get back 40,000 shares. The respondent No. 2 did not account for the amount received and illegally retained the shares handed over by M/s. Essar Company.

The petitioner filed written synopsis and relied upon the authorities: Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Rajvir Industries Ltd. and Others, , All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Another, , Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, & P. Sharma Vs. P.S. Popli and Another, .

The respondent No. 2 complainant urged that the petitioner is a big fraud and a habitual offender. He concealed the material fact that earlier Crl.M.M. 2207/1999 was filed by him for quashing of the complaint cases. He made false statements and on 01.07.1999, moved two applications before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for recalling of the summoning order and for exemption of personal appearance. The exemption for appearance was ''allowed'' and not ''dismissed'' as stated in the petition No. 2790/2000. He simultaneously filed Revision 592/1999 (New No. 1/2000) before learned Additional Sessions Judge during the pendency of the petition before this Court and did not disclose the same in his revision. The present petitions for quashing of the cases are not maintainable as the matters are still at initial stage and the petitioner has not appeared in many cases so far. He further argued that petitioner deliberately omitted/ deleted 24 important words from the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 01.07.2000 and added two words of its own which were not in the order. The petitioner made false statement that Rs. 3.25 lacs were given in cash to him in Kuwait in Petition No. 2790/00. No cash payment was ever received by him in Kuwait on 05.07.1997 and no receipt of said cash was executed. The petitioner did not file any such receipt in the Court. Contrary to that, he had given written instructions to Babli, his brother-in-law to issue two cheques from his account. These two cheques were found forged. Charge-sheet have been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner gave false/ contrary statement of non issuance of cheque of Rs. 3.25 lacs which is a disputed fact. The petitioner cheated him by issuing forged cheques for Rs. 3.25 lacs and also misrepresenting him by various means that he had settled the dispute with KIFCO for 3 lacs Kuwait Dinar. He obtained various undertakings by deceitful means to cause wrongful loss to him. He filed suit for Rendition of Accounts in July, 1997. After coming to know about settlement, he filed complaint u/s 420 IPC in December, 1997 and the said suit was dismissed in default on 28.08.1998. He further argued that General Power of Attorney dated 01.08.1991 was irrevocable and was for valuable consideration. By cancelling the same, the petitioner committed breach of trust. From the judgments passed by District Courts, New York, USA, it reveals that the petitioner committed fraud of approximate 8.60 millions US Dollars i.e. approximately Rs. 50 crores by forgery, cheating etc. He is a part of an international shipping frauds syndicate that runs of shadow operation across the globe, employs numerous shifting identities and dummy corporations and assaults official witnesses, bribes and defrauds Government officials. It was specifically observed that Mohinder (sic petitioner) had not conducted himself in a trustworthy manner. The petitioner falsely claimed that he was not the same Mohinder Singh Sahni named in the original complaint. He attempted to fool Judge Casey as to his identity. He posed himself as Jogender at the April, 2004 meetings. In the present petitions, the petitioner has claimed that he is Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni and not Mohinder Singh Sahni. He is having two passports one in the name of Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni and another in the name of Mohinder Singh Sahni. He further argued that FIR was registered by Crime Branch Mumbai on the complaint of Bank of Bahrein at Kuwait vide FIR/MCR 2/2001 under Sections 467/420/468/471/120B IPC. He further argued that in Crl.M.M. 3193/05, the petitioner used/ filed copies of various medical certificates dated 20.05.1999, 07.06.1999 and 30.06.1999.

The respondent /complainant filed supplementary written submissions to state that after the judgments/ orders were reserved, Insp. Satya Pal Singh of PS Tilak Nagar filed status report in the Court of Ms. Navita Bagha, Metropolitan Magistrate and it was stated that the certificates did not carry attestation of the concerned authority and not signed by two doctors and directors of the Hospital as per the ministerial decisions applied therefor.

He relied upon the authorities: The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, , Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir and Others, , Satish Khosla Vs. M/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. and another, , Kuldeep Kapoor Vs. Susanta Sengupta, , Re: Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate, & Gangawwa Vs. State of Mysore, .

It is also relevant to note that summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he had applied his mind to the facts of the case in the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, , the Supreme Court held:

Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.

In Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, , the Supreme Court held:

While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which, do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , this Court observed:

It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in taw. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power u/s 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.

The petitions filed by the petitioner are being considered in the light of above facts and law.

Present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni for quashing of complaint case No. 1113/1/04 ''Harnam Singh vs. Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni'', under Sections 468/471/120-B IPC in which vide order dated 01.03.2005, he was summoned for committing offences punishable under Sections 468/471 IPC.

In the complaint case, respondent No. 2 alleged that Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni was summoned u/s 420 IPC vide order dated 11.11.1998 in a complaint case instituted by him. On 26.05.1999, the accused moved an application for exemption through his advocate and filed photocopy of a medical certificate dated 20.05.1999 purportedly issued by Dr. Ibrahim Y.Al. Deeb of Kuwait. Similarly, on 10.06.1999, and 01.07.1999 exemption was sought and he filed photocopy of the medical certificate dated 07.06.1999 and 30.06.1999 respectively purportedly issued by the said doctor. The complainant further alleged that there were various discrepancies in the medical certificates. It had no complete address or telephone number/serial number/registration number of the concerned doctor. The designation/qualification of the doctor in the certificates were discrepant. He got an opinion of the handwriting expert who opined that signatures on the certificates dated 20.05.1999, 07.06.1999 and 30.06.1999 differed from each other. The accused/ petitioner deliberately filed / used the forged documents in the Court proceedings and played fraud and got exemption. The complainant examined himself as CW-2 besides producing CW-1 (Ashok Kumar Mittle) and CW-3 (Mrs. R.K. Vij), Handwriting Expert.

The photocopies of the medical certificates were filed while seeking exemption on 26.05.1999, 10.06.1999 and 01.07.1999. It appears that relying upon the certificates the accused/ petitioner was granted exemption by the Court. It is unclear if at the time of seeking exemption on behalf of the petitioner, the complainant had raised any objection or suspected the genuineness of the medical certificates. The present complaint case was filed in July, 2002 after a considerable delay of about three years. The complainant has failed to explain the inordinate delay in filing the complaint case. It is not clear if the complainant challenged the exemption granted to the petitioner in the said proceedings. It has come on record that the complainant had earlier moved applications u/s 340 Cr.P.C. However, he opted to withdraw the said applications. There is no finding of the Court concerned that the petitioner sought exemption on forged or fabricated documents. The original medical certificates were not on record. The handwriting expert merely examined the photocopies of the medical certificates. The Trial Court had no cogent material except the bald statement of the complainant to form its, prima facie, opinion that the medical certificates filed along with the exemption applications were forged or fabricated. No coercive action was taken by the Court concerned against the petitioner for filing the alleged forged or fabricated medical certificates. Complainant had no reasonable belief that the certificates were forged and fabricated. It is relevant to note that the complainant registered FIR No. 308/2005 dated 29.07.2005 at PS Tilak Marg, under Sections 420/467/468/428 IPC against the petitioner for allegedly filing the said medical certificates in the proceedings instituted u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant opted to withdraw the complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint case in which the exemption was sought and the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 11.11.1998 has been quashed by a separate order. The complainant has lodged numerous criminal litigations against the petitioner apparently to drag him in unending litigations. The Trial Court without application of mind summoned the accused. The whole case of the complainant is based upon surmises and conjectures. The complaint case does not show any worthwhile material to proceed against the petitioner and it is an abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint case ''Harnam Singh vs. Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni'' and summoning order dated 01.03.2005 are quashed. The petition is allowed. Pending application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith.