Om Prakash Sharma vs State of Haryana

V.K. Jhanji, J.

This will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 6860M of 1989 and Criminal Misc. No. 6861M of 1989.

Criminal Misc. No. 6860M of 1989 has been filed under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of order passed on 6.9.1988 by the Court of Shri H.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, in Criminal Case No. 3571, dated 4.10.1986 in State v. Naresh Kumar and others, framing charges against the petitioner and other coaccused under sections 468, 471, 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Similarly, Criminal Misc. No. 6861M of 1989 has been filed against order dated 29.10.1988 passed by the same Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 2811 dated 21.8.1986 in State v. Daya Ram and others, framing charges against the petitioner and other coaccused under sections 468, 471, 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

Criminal Misc. No. 6860M of 1989 has arisen out of complaint filed by one Bhoja Ram which was sent to the police by the then SubDivisional Magistrate under section 156, Cr.P. C. for registration and investigation on the allegation that in civil suit titled Rama Nand v. Naresh Kumar, suit of the PlaintiffRama Nand etc., was decreed on 15.6.1983 collusively in connivance with the petitioner who knew at the time of filing of the suit that Dhani, Nangi and Gondori were already dead. Written statement was filed by the petitioner on behalf of the defendants including the dead, admitting the claim of the plaintiff. The SubDivisional Magistrate (Judicial) vide order dated 6.9.1988, after going through the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. found prima facie case against all the accused including the petitioner that they have committed offences under Sections 420/466/467/468/47V120B of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, application of the petitioner for discharge was dismissed and the trial Magistrate ordered for framing of the charges against the petitioner. This order is now being impugned in Criminal Misc. No. 6860M of 1989.

Criminal Misc. No. 6861M of 1989 has arisen out of F.I.R. No. 76 dated 7.3.1994. P.S. City Rewari under Sections 420/468/471/120B of Indian Penal Code and the allegation is that all the accused including the petitioner had hatched a criminal conspiracy. Accused, Daya Ram and Bhagwana had mortgaged 32 kanals of land belonging to the complainant with the Syndicate Bank, Rewari and obtained loan of Rs. 10,000/ each. Om Parkash Advocate (Petitioner) had identified Bhagwana as Harpal Singh. On perusal of the Challan submitted against the accused under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. the SubDivisional Magistrate (Judicial) found that there are sufficient grounds to presume that the accused including the petitioner had committed offences under the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, application for discharge was dismissed and the petitioner was ordered to be chargesheeted along with other accused, which order is being impugned in Criminal Misc. No. 6861M of 1989.

Petitioner, who has appeared in person, relying upon the case of Mansa Ram, Advocate, v. State U.T Chandigarh, 1984(2) Recent Criminal Reports 129 : 1984(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter, 623, has contended that there is no material on record to show that there was any conspiracy or preconcert between the petitioner and his coaccused. He has made pointed reference to Hira Lal Jain v. Delhi Administration, 1973 PLR 122 (S.C.) notice of which has been taken in Mansa Ram''s case (supra), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :

"Where an advocate was engaged by some persons for identifying them as Claimants in an application made on their behalf to claim certain land acquisition compensation amount and the advocate believing the statements of the claimants as true filed his vakalatnama agreeing to act on their behalf and there was no evidence to show prior knowledge on the part of the Advocate that the claimants were not the real persons entitled to claim the amount and no concert between the former and the latter was brought on record. Held, that it could not be said that there was prima facie evidence entitling the Magistrate to commit the Advocate for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 419, 420, 511 and Section 467 read with 471, Indian Penal Code."

In Hiralal''s case, there was no evidence to show prior knowledge on the part of the Advocate that the claimants were not real persons and in Mansa Ram''s case, nothing was brought on record to show that Mansa Ram, Advocate, had conspired with other accused. However, in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner in both the cases is that he appeared for Dhani, Nangi and Gindori fully knowing well that they were already dead and also identified Bhagwana as Harpal Singh and helped him in obtaining loan from the bank by mortgaging the land of the complainant. The allegation prima facie discloses the commission of offence for which he has been charged. It is settled law that at the time of framing of the charge, the Court is not to enter into meticulous consideration of offence and the material placed before the trial Judge.

Consequently, there is no merit in these petitions and the same shall, therefore, stand dismissed.