DATE OF ORDER
28TH APRIL 2023
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. M.R. SHAH
SUBJECT
The court examines the summoning order passed by trial court against the appellants and also examines section 29-A of ROPA,1951.
OVERVIEW
- The appellants are dissatisfied and aggrieved by the impugned order and judgement passed by the High Court Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in which Court has dismissed the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and also set-aside the summoning order of the trial court against appellants under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467,468, 471 read in light if Section 120B of IPC.
- The facts of the case are such that the genesis if the case is a private complaint filed by respondent no.1 (herein). The complaint alleged that there is conflict between an affidavit filed in the form of an undertaking by Election Commission of India and with undertaking given to Gurudwara Election Commission, while meeting the requirements of section 29-A(5) of ROPA,1951.
- It was alleged that the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) is not having the right to function as a political party as its office bearers are secular as the affidavit sworn by then President of SAD claimed that it adheres to the principles of secularism.
- The learned trial court held enquiry and by an order dated 26.08.2011, ordered Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema to be summoned as witnesses along the record.
- 9 years later of the original complaint, an amendment application was moved by the complainant on 28.04.2017. The amendment seemed substantial changes and sought to add Shri Parkash Singh Badal as an accused.
- This amendment application was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by which, original complainant moved to HC. The judgement passed by the HC is challenged in the present appeals.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT
- The learned counsel vehemently submitted that the complaint dated 20.02.2009, has been filed 20years later of the registration of Party by the respondent no.1.
- It was submitted that the registration of Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) was under the provision of section 29-A of ROPA, ACT 1951. Infact, the Secretariat of ECI while adjudicating the challenge on registration informed the respondent that the challenge was unsustainable.
- The counsel said that the respondent after getting failed in an attempt of registration of Party has filed the complaint after so many years.
- The counsel contended that the claim by the respondent regarding conflict between the undertaking of ECI and Gurudwara Election Commission has no substance.
- It was contended by the counsel that religious place’s management is a secular act. Participating in the elections as per The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 is for efficient management and thus is not a non-secular act.
- It was contended that the ingredients of offence of cheating and forgery is not found herein. It was prayed to allow the appeals.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellants and favored the decision of trial court in holding accused under the offences Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC.
- It was contended that there was no material error in the dismissal of the review petition by the High Court
- It was submitted by the counsel that the present case is a serious case of cheating, forgery and fraud committed by the appellants in order to get the registration of the political party.
- It was asserted that the witnesses have stated that a fabricated document was submitted to the ECI in the name of ‘memorandum’ so as to project compliance of section 29-A of ROPA,1951.
- It was said that the false claim of secularism establishes a clear case under Section 415/420 of IPC.
- It was prayed to dismiss the appeals.
JUDGEMENT
- The apex court allowed the present appeals and quashed the impugned judgement and order passed by High Court.
- The court held that in the present case the allegations of offence under Section 420 of IPC on the accused is clearly not established.
- No ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of Cheating is found in the case and hence the accused is not to be convicted under the offence of Cheating.
- The court examined the charge put up on the appellant-accused under Section 463, 465 of IPC. It was held that in the present case no false documents has been produced. There is only one document produced which was the Memorandum.
- Court said that there is a difference between making a false claim and producing false document.
- The court examined and held that BP case is made under Section 466, 467, and 468 IPC. It was said that section 471 will be applicable in the case where genuine forged document is produced.
CONCLUSION
The apex court concluded that the offences mentioned in the summoning order of the trial court cannot be upheld as there us absence of ingredients of the offences in the present case. The court quashed entire criminal proceedings against the appellants
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
