Shashikant vs Sh.A.K.Sharma and anr.

S.S. Dewan, J.

In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code), Shashi Kant has sought quashing of the criminal complaint filed by A.K. Sharma, respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and others for the offences under Ss. 181/193/467/468/471 and 120B Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Sh. Harjit Singh, SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka.

Without going into the details of the complaint, in substance the allegations therein amount to this : that a registered firm M/s Bihari Lal Bhupinder Rai, Abohar Mandi, through Bhupinder Rai and the petitioner, being partners of the said firm filed a suit in the Court of Sh. K.S, Bhullar, SubJudge 1st Class, Fazilka against Aaidan for the recovery of Rs. 19,900/, being the amount due from Aaidan as the amount advanced by the said firm to him through a pronote and its receipt dated 28.8.1976 and the interest thereon. The learned SubJudge while dismissing the suit held that the defendant Aidan had to pay Rs. 15,000/ as loan to the petitioner''s firm but the same was not recoverable being barred by limitation. He however, observed as under on November 20, 1980 :

"In this case, the plaintiff firm has forged a valuable security in conspiracy with Hans Raj Muneem and Girdhari Lal alleged attesting witness of receipt P.2. Hans Raj, Girdhari Lal and Shashikant have also made false statements with regard to the execution of the said promote and the receipt by the defendant from plaintiff on 28.8.1976. The plaintiff has also used the forged document as genuine knowing the same to be forged one. The plaintiff firm of which Shri Shashi Kant and Bhupinder Rai are partners. Hans Raj, Girdhari Lal committed offences under section 467 of the I.P.C. The plaintiff firm committed an offence under section 471 of the I.P.C. and Hans Raj, Girdhari Lal and Shashi Kant also committed offence under section 181 I.P.C. In my opinion, it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made as provided for in section 340, Cr.P.C. and order accordingly"

The learned SubJudge issued notices to the petitioner and others for appearance in his court on 4.2.1981, and ultimately on 2.12.1983, the learned SubJudge passed the following order :

"The complaint be drafted and sent to the court of Shri Harjit Singh, S.D.M. for trial. The accused are directed to appear before the Court of Shri Harjit Singh S.D.M. on 22.12.1983."

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, copies of the complaint etc. were supplied to the petitioner and others.

Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint against him and others on the ground that the learned SubJudge had ordered for making an enquiry under Section 310 of the Code but no such enquiry was ever held and that there was also no finding given by the learned SubJudge that it was expedient in the interest of justice to file the complaint. In support of this contention reliance is placed on a decision in Jagdish Chander Singla v. The State of Haryana, 1983 (1) C.L.R. (P&H) 89. Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the State, has nothing to repel this contention. He has, however, candidly conceded that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the learned Sub Judge had held the preliminary enquiry as envisaged by section 340(1) of the Code and that the present case is covered by the decision in Jagdish Chander Singla''s case (supra).

For these reasons I allow this petition and quash the complaint under sections 181/193/467/468/471 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and others.