Criminal Misc.No.4980-M of 2005 : 1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: September 15, 2008
Smt.Bohti Devi
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner, who is a lady and was Sarpanch of village
Silli Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar at the relevant
time, has filed this petition seeking quashing of criminal complaint
No.904 dated 18.7.2000 pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Jagadhri under Sections 418, 420, 426, 466, 468 and 471 IPC. She
has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.4.2003
whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face proceedings
Criminal Misc.No.4980-M of 2005 : 2:
under Sections 466 and 468 IPC.
The facts in this case make an interesting reading.
Allegation in the complaint, as levelled by respondent No.2 is that
resolution dated 8.1.2000 passed by Gram Panchayat, Silli Kalan
was forged and submitted to the Government by the then Gram
Panchayat. On this relevant date, the husband of the petitioner,
namely, Rishi Pal was a sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is
alleged that this resolution is forged one as the same is signed by
one Panch, named, Jagir Singh, who had earlier been removed by
the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 24.3.1999. Panch had
been removed on a petition filed by complainant-respondent No.2. It
is, thus, urged that this resolution, which contains the signatures of
Jagir Singh, who stood removed for being a Panch, is a forgery as it
contains his signatures. The petitioner, who is wife of Rishi Pal, was
elected as a Sarpanch in the following term.
It appears that complainant-respondent No.2 applied for
copy of the resolution dated 8.1.2000 passed during the tenure of
earlier panchayat which is alleged to have been forged. It is further
revealed that this application was given to Block Development and
Panchayat Officer, who has not supplied the copy of this resolution to
complainant-respondent No.2. It is, thus, alleged that the petitioner,
who was the Sarpanch at the time of making this application by
respondent No.2, has colluded with the Block Development and
Panchayat Officer in ensuring non-supply of copy of the forged
resolution in order to save her husband.
It has not been specifically pleaded that this application
Criminal Misc.No.4980-M of 2005 : 3:
was given to the petitioner, who was the then Sarpanch. In fact, the
counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to para 13 of the
complaint where it is specifically averred that complainant-
respondent No.2 had applied for copy of the said resolution to the
Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Radaur, but the
petitioner, who was referred as accused No.2, colluded with the said
Block Development and Panchayat Officer and ensured that the copy
was not supplied to the complainant-respondent No.2 of the
resolution dated 8.1.2000. Thus, it is clear that no application was
ever given to the petitioner for supply of this resolution. It also
transpires that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer has not
been arrayed as one of the accused. The submission is that in the
absence of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, the petitioner
cannot be charged for colluding with him for non-supply of this
resolution.
Even otherwise, I have not been able to comprehend as
to how the non-supply of a resolution would lead to an offence under
Sections 466 and 468 IPC. The counsel for the respondent, however,
vehemently argued before me that this act on the part of petitioner
would show collusion to save her husband, who was responsible for
forging this resolution by making signatures of Jagir Singh to appear
on this resolution. Certain averments have been made in the
complaint that Jagir Singh had given an affidavit that he never signed
this resolution after the date he was removed from the office of
Panch. Be that as it may, but there is no specific averment or
allegation appearing in the entire complaint against the petitioner,
Criminal Misc.No.4980-M of 2005 : 4:
which would make her responsible for offence under Section 466 or
468 IPC. It is also required to be noticed that the petitioner has not
been charged for any conspiracy or collusion for these offences. She
has been summoned to face trial for substantive offences under
Sections 466 and 468 IPC. From the best reading of the complaint,
no allegation against the petitioner under these offences can be
made out. It may also require a notice that the husband of the
petitioner is otherwise facing the prosecution. If any resolution was
forged, it would have been done by the husband of the petitioner and
not by her. Admittedly, the resolution was passed during the earlier
tenure of the Sarpanch who was husband of the petitioner. In this
view of the matter, I do not find any offence is made out against the
petitioner from the complaint. The present petition is accordingly
allowed. The complaint and the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom including the summoning of the petitioner qua her are
quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
It is made clear that the present order would not have any
effect on the remaining accused, who are to be made to face the
prosecution.
September 15, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE