Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Revision No.M-533 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : February 17, 2014 Bachan Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
SURINDER GUPTA, J CRM-5189-2014 This is an application for condonation of 8 days' delay in filing the revision petition.
Heard.
For the reasons as mentioned in the application, 8 days' delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.
CM is allowed.
CRR-533 of 2014 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.11.2013 passed by the trial court whereby the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.to summon Kartar Kaur and Harjinder Singh was dismissed.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner entered into a deal with Bawa Singh son of Chanda Singh in the year 2009 to send his son to Italy on payment of `9,08,000/-.
In January and February, 2009 Bawa Singh took `8,000/- along with passport and remaining amount of `9,00,000/- was paid to Bawa Singh, Kartar Kaur his wife and son Harjinder Singh at the house of the complainant at village Kehar Kalan.
The police after registration of the case presented the challan against Bawa Singh for which he is facing trial.
The prosecution moved application for summoning Kartar Kaur wife of the accused and his son Harjinder Singh, which was declined by the Kumar Deepak 2014.02.24 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.
Misc.
No.M-533 of 2014 -2- trial court with the observations as follows :- “The perusal of record shows that this FIR was registered against accused Bawa Singh only (who is present in court) on a complaint dated 21.7.2010 of complainant Bachan Singh which is Ex.PW-1/A on record.
The perusal of said complaint shows that complainant Bawa Singh leveled allegations against accused Bawa Singh that the complainant had a deal with the accused Bawa Singh for sending his son to Italy and he had taken the said sum and passport of his son and had promised the complainant that he will send his son Harjinder Singh to Italy in two months.
Only allegations against Kartar Kaur and Harjinder are that they came along with Bawa Singh to the house of complainant and received the money, but the material allegations of cheating have only been leveled by complainant Bachan Singh only against accused Bawa Singh and not against Kartar Kaur and Harjinder.
Even in inquiry conducted by concerned DSP, Kartar Kaur and Harjinder were found to be innocent while accused Bawa Singh was found guilty and this case was registered against only Bawa Singh.
The perusal of statement of PW-1 Bachan Singh in the court shows that material allegations of inducement to the complainant have only been leveled against Bawa Singh.
Thus, there are no sufficient grounds for summoning Kartar Kaur and Harjinder as accused in this case to face trial and the material on record is not such as would warrant their ultimate conviction in this case.”
.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The complaint and the FIR shows that the petitioner had entered into a deal with Bawa Singh and not with the private respondents.
Mere allegations that they were present at the time of payment of deal amount to Bawa Singh do not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 420 IPC against them so as to summon them to face trial.
In the absence of any evidence in the complaint that the petitioner was induced by the private respondents to pay any amount under Kumar Deepak 2014.02.24 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.
Misc.
No.M-533 of 2014 -3- the deal, no offence is disclosed under Section 420 IPC against respondents No.2 and 3.
The payment under deal was made to Bawa Singh.
Even if it be believed that it was made in the presence of the private respondents, no offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust is disclosed against them.
Even in his statement before trial court as PW-1 the complainant has stated that it was Bawa Singh who had given affidavit, undertaking to send his son abroad or to return his money.
No such undertaking or assurance was given by the private respondents.
The police has not found any evidence of connivance of the private respondents with Bawa Singh, as such, has not presented the challan against them.
The trial court has committed no legal or factual infirmity while dismissing the application of the petitioner, calling for any interference, in this petition.
There is no merits in this petition.
Dismissed.
February 17, 2014 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge Kumar Deepak 2014.02.24 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document