Baltej Singh v. Iqbal Singh & Anr.

seconder were not mentioned in the columns of their forms.

5. That on 20.6.2003, the accused no.8 rejected the names of complainant alongwith Om Parkash son of Sh.Jaimal Ram and Ravinder Kumr son of Sh.Vijay Pal, Resham Singh, s/o Sh.Roop Singh, Balwinder Singh s/o Sh.Baljit Singh, resident of Village Crl.Misc. No.M-24828 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Gadha Dob and accused no.3 and 7 on the ground that aforesaid candidates have either proposed or seconded the names of other candidates despite being the candidates themselves or the candidates have themselves put their signatures as proposer and seconder. On hearing this, the complainant was very surprised and stated that he has not put his signatures on the nomination forms of any candidates as proposer or seconder. The complainant asked the accused No.8, who is in collusion with other accused and was Returning Officer of the above said election, to scrutinize the nomination papers and also asked him to show the nomination papers so that he could satisfy the accused no.8 that he has not signed the nomination papers of any other candidates as proposer or seconder. But accused No.8, who was in collusion with other accused, did not listen to the complainant. In this regard, the higher officers were also informed and complaint was also made against the accused.

6. That accused no.2 Baltej Singh, who is associate of other accused, in collusion with other accused in order to give practical shape to the conspiracy and in order to make successful the forged proceedings of other accused, withdrew his nomination paper and thereafter only accused no.1 remained the candidate for the post of Sarpanch. As a consequence of said conspiracy and with the collusion of all the accused, accused no.1 has become Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Gadha Dob in papers. Accused no.1 withdrew lot of money from his account for all this and gave the same to accused no.8 and other accused as bribe and after conducting the Crl.Misc. No.M-24828 of 2009 (O&M) 4 forged proceedings, all the accused gathered at the house of accused No.1 and celebrated the election of Sarpanch and for conducting forged and fabricated proceedings. In the said celebrations, all the aforesaid accused and Massa Singh s/o Sh.Nidhan Singh, Inderjit Singh s/o Sh.Sampuran Singh and other persons gathered and in the presence of aforesaid persons, the accused admitted their commission of offence and stated that he, in collusion with other accused, forged the signatures of complainant and other candidates and became Sarpanch and further stated that now nobody can cause any harm to him. The accused also admitted that in case they would not have committed fraud, then it would have been very difficult to have been elected Sarpanch in the elections.

7. That all the accused, in collusion with each other, after the date of submitting the nomination papers i.e. 19.6.2003, obtined the nomination papers of accused no. 3 to 7 from accused no.8 and accused no.1 forged the signatures of Om Parkash son of Sh.Jai Mal on the nomination papers of accused Amandeep Singh s/o Sh.Aaiyedeen as proposer and on the nomination papers of accused Baltar Singh, the signatures of Ravinder Kumar s/o Sh.Vijay Pal were forged a proposer. Similarly, the accused forged the signatures of complainant on the nomination papers of accused Gurbaksh Singh. On the nomination papers of accused Chand Singh s/o Sh.Bhag Singh, the signatures of Resham Singh s/o S.Roop Singh were forged as proposer and on nomination paper of accused Jagroop Singh s/o S.Sarban Singh, the signatures Crl.Misc. No.M-24828 of 2009 (O&M) 5 of Balwinder Singh, s/o S.Baljit Singh were forged. All these signatures were forged by all the accused under a pre-planned conspiracy in collusion with each other that on withdrawal of nomination paper by accused Baltej Singh, who is also a member of accused party,and after rejection of nomination papers of all other candidates, accused no.1 would become Sarpanch. The accused in order to conceal their conspiracy and to give it a colour of reality, withdrew the nomination paper of Baltej Singh accused, who was a member of their party. As such, the aforesaid accused, after conducting the fake proceedings, accused no.1 without any contest, got himself appointed as Sarpanch.

8. That all the aforesaid accused, in collusin with each other , conducted fake proceedings and after forging the signatures of the complainant and his party's candidates on the nomination paper of dummy candidates in collusion with accused no.8, conducted the whole fraudulent proceedings. Accused No.8 misused his powers and after taking hefty amount played major role in helping the other accused. Due to this reason, fake nomination papers were submitted and whole fake proceedings were conducted. That the aforesaid accused, in collusion with each other and with their common intention, committed the offence under Section 119/166/226-A/419/467/468/471/120-B and 34 IPC.

9. That the accused hatched the aforesaid conspiracy and have committed the offence at Abohar, which is within jurisdiction of Police Station City Abohar. Therefore, this court has the jurisdiction to try this complaint case. Crl.Misc. No.M-24828 of 2009 (O&M) 6

10.The requisite court fee of Rs.1.25 has been affixed on the present complaint case. It is therefore, prayed tht the accused have committed the offence with their common intention and the accused may be summoned and awarded punishment as per law. The complainant shall produce evidence of every type." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he had withdrawn his nomination qua the post of Sarpanch. Hence, the complaint as well as the summoning order qua the petitioner were liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner in connivance with his co-accused had withdrawn his nomination so as to enable accused No.1-Sumeet Singh to be elected as Sarpanch. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482,Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or Crl.Misc. No.M-24828 of 2009 (O&M) 7 the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific Crl.Misc. No.M-24828 of 2009 (O&M) 8 provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” A perusal of the complaint reveals that the allegations levelled against the petitioner-Baltej Singh are in para 6 of the complaint. Petitioner had withdrawn his nomination. This ipso facto does not lead to the inference that the petitioner was also party to the forgery committed by the other accused. Petitioner is legally entitled to withdraw his nomination. A perusal of the complaint does not lead to the inference that any cognizable offence has been committed by the petitioner. Learned trial Court has erred in summoning the petitioner along with other co-accused under Sections119/166/225-A/419/420/467/468/120-B read with Section 34 IPC. Continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be Crl.Misc. No.M-24828 of 2009 (O&M) 9 nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint (Annexure P1) as well as summoning order dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure P2) qua the petitioner are quashed. (Sabina) Judge March 18 , 2010