Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Criminal Case Over 22 Yrs Old Land Dispute, Says Prosecution Can't Abuse Legal Remedies To Further Malicious Agenda
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the summoning order in a cheating case which was lodged 22 years after the alleged incident, observing that prosecution cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of the available legal remedies merely to further its own malicious agenda.A complaint was filed by a son in 2012 against a manager of his father's land who allegedly sold the excess...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the summoning order in a cheating case which was lodged 22 years after the alleged incident, observing that prosecution cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of the available legal remedies merely to further its own malicious agenda.
A complaint was filed by a son in 2012 against a manager of his father's land who allegedly sold the excess land than the share of his father in connivance with revenue officials in1989-1990.
The Court remarked that initiating criminal proceedings for a purely civil dispute, after a lapse of almost three decades "appears to merely be an instrument for harassment."
While quashing the summoning orders Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "the atrociously delayed trial casts serious doubts with respect to the integrity of the cause of action and continuation of such proceedings would only promote the cause of private vendetta, not justice. Not only does this approach directly violate the right of the accused for fair trial but also causes undue harm to his reputation and self-esteem, making the entire exercise antithetical to the concept of justice and fair play."
The Court added further that the prosecution cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of the available legal remedies merely to further its own malicious agenda.
Rajinder Singh Bhullar had filed the plea under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of summoning order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in a criminal complaint filed in 2012 under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC.
It was alleged that Bhullar was given a General Power of Attorney for managing the land of the father of the complainant and he sold excess land than the share of his father in connivance with revenue officials by executing sale deeds in 1989 and 1990.
After hearing the submissions, the Court said that Article 21 of the Constitution vests a right in the accused to be tried speedily, which includes all stages, starting from investigation to trial and appeal. However, where the speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the question which is required to be answered is, who is responsible for the said delay, whether it is the complainant or the accused.
In the case at hand, the complainant has "failed to give a plausible explanation as to what prevented him from lodging a complaint against the petitioner for almost 22 years," the Court noted.
Adding that though there is no bar of limitation provided under Section 468 CrPC for complaint under Section 420 CrPC the Court said, "the same can be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of delay, as the proceedings initiated after an unexplained inordinate delay would amount to abuse of the process of the Court."
Justice Brar highlighted that the essential ingredients for commission of offence of cheating are deception and inducement to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. "There must be an intention to induce a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."
The Court found that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had a dishonest intention from the very inception and he deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person.
The judge noted that the father of the complainant died in 1992 i.e. after execution of the aforesaid sale deeds and he nowhere in the complaint levelled any allegation that the petitioner is in any way was beneficiary of the sale consideration of the sale deeds.
"A perusal of the record of the case reveals that the complainant has tried to give colour of criminal prosecution to the dispute, which is purely of civil nature and never resorted to civil remedies for the reasons best known to him," the Court observed.
Reliance was placed upon Apex Court's decision in Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others 2023, wherein speaking through Justice M.R. Shah the Court observed, "Article 21 of the Constitution protects lives and personal liberties of both the victim and those accused of having committed an offence. For this reason, the procedure established by law should be construed in the manner that the text of the statute ensures right to seek investigation to redress injustice and uncover crime by recourse to expeditious, fair and impartial procedure. Concomitantly, the law in application should protect blameless against those informants who levels false allegations and abuse the law causing distress, humiliation and damage to reputation."
Consequently, the Court quashed the summoning order passed by the ASJ and allowed the plea.
Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner
Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 78
Title: Rajinder Singh Bhullar v. Ranjit Singh