0

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M ……………… of 2015

Sumeet Rattan
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
……Respondents
INDEX

Sr.No. Particular(s) Dated Page(s) Court fee

1. Application for exemption 23.07.2014 01 – 02 03.00
2. Affidavit 23.07.2014 03 - 04 …
3. Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 23.07.2014 05 - 26 03.00
4. Affidavit in support 23.07.2014 27 - 28 ….
5. Annexure P-1 (FIR ) 03.04.2012 29 - 33 04.00
6. Annexure P-2 (Letter) 05.11.2011 34 – 35 02.00
7. Annexure P-3 (Letter) 14.08.2012 36 – 37 02.00
8. Annexure P-4 (Report u/s 23.05.2013 38 - 41 03.00
173 Cr.P.C.)
9. Power of Attorney 23.07.2014 42 03.00
Total Court Fee Rs. 20.00

(ANKUR MITTAL) & (AMIT GUPTA)

ADVOCATES
CHANDIGARH: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
DATED: 23.07.2014 Enrollment Nos. P/1296/01 & P/788/11
 1

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No…………. of 2014

In

Crl. Misc No M. ………………of 2014

Jaspal Singh
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
……Respondents

APPLICATION under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, praying for grant of exemption from filing certified

copies of Annexure P–1 to P-4 with the accompanying Criminal

Misc. Petition.

Respectfully Showeth:-

1. That the petitioner/applicant is filing the accompanying Criminal

Misc. Petition in this Hon’ble High Court, which is most likely to

succeed on the basis of grounds taken therein, which may kindly be

read as a part and parcel of this application.

2. That certified copies of P–1 to P-4 are not readily available with the

petitioner/applicant. However, true typed copies of the same are

being annexed with the accompanying petition.

 2

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that filing of the

certified copies of P–1 to P-4 along with the accompanying Criminal

Misc. Petition, may kindly be exempted, in the interest of justice.

NOTE: Affidavit is attached.

CHANDIGARH: (ANKUR MITTAL) & (AMIT GUPTA)

DATED: 23.07.2014 ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
Enrollment Nos. P/1296/01 & P/788/11
 3

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No…………. of 2014

In Crl. Misc No M. ………………of 2014

Jaspal Singh
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
……Respondents

Affidavit of Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Gurdial Singh, owner M/s Jaspal Singh

Stone Crusher, Village & Post office Bharatgarh, District Roopnagar,

R/o H. No. 940 Phase-3B2, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:-

1. That the petitioner/applicant is filing the accompanying Criminal

Misc. Petition in this Hon’ble High Court, which is most likely to

succeed on the basis of grounds taken therein, which may kindly be

read as a part and parcel of this application.

2. That certified copies of P–1 to P- 4 are not readily available with the

petitioner/applicant. However, true typed copies of the same are

being annexed with the accompanying petition.

 4

Place: Chandigarh

Dated: 23.07.2014 DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified that the contents of Para No.1 to 2 of my affidavit are

true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing

has been concealed therefrom.

Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 23.07.2014 DEPONENT
 5

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M No. ………………of 2019

Sumeet Rattan S/o.

…Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Haryana through Commissioner of Police, Gurugram.

2. Jetha nand Saluja

…Respondents

CHANDIGARH: (ANKUR MITTAL) & (AMIT GUPTA)

DATED: 23.07.2014 ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
Enrollment Nos. P/1296/01 & P/788/11
 6

PETITION under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

praying for quashing of the case/F.I.R. No. 523 dated 14.11.2018,

registered under Section 420,467,468,471 & 120B IPC, at Police

Station Sector-14, Gurugram, Haryana, in the interest of justice, equity

and fair play.

AND/OR

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may

kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1. That at the very outset, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner

is peace loving and law abiding citizen. He is the permanent resident

of the State of Himachal Pradesh and is employed in Gurugram,

Haryana and, therefore, is fully entitled to invoke the inherent

jurisdiction of the quashing of the present false case/FIR 523 dated

14.11.2018, registered at Police Station Sector-14, Gurugram,

Haryana under Section 420,267,268,271&120B IPC and further at the

instance of the respondent no. 2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja who was not

even authorised to lodge the complaint/FIR. Therefore, the Ld. Court

cannot take cognizance of the matter, in pursuance to the FIR. Thus,

the petitioner craves the kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for

quashing of the present impugned FIR and to provide justice to the

petitioner.
 7

2. That at this stage of events, the petitioner most humbly submits that

he is working with Interglobe Aviation Ltd. in Flight Operations since

September 2011 and is residing in Gurugram, Haryana since

September 2007 in a rented accomodation at House no. 1357, Sector

17C, Gurugram, 122002, Haryana. The petitioner commands great

respect in the social as well as professional circle, however, the

registration of the present false case/FIR has seriously dented the

reputation earned by him with his sheer dent of the hard work;

therefore, the petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court for the

vindication of his grievances.

3. That it is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

the afore-mentioned case/F.I.R No. 523 (supra). It is submitted that

the present case/FIR has been registered at the instance of

respondent no. 2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja who is chronically embroilled

in perpetual and collusive litigation with various parties. True

translated copy of case/F.I.R. No. 523 (supra) is being attached

herewith as Annexure P-1 for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble

Court.

4. That it is most respectfully submitted that the bare perusal of the

impugned case/FIR reveals that the case/FIR had been registered at

the instance of respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja. The contents

further reveal that it had been contended that Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja

had been acquitted on an inquiry conducted by SIT in FIR no. 372 dtd.

01.05.2014.
 8

5. That the other fact which has been suppressed by Mr. Jetha Nand

Saluja is that he was embroilled in a litigation with one Mr. Vineet

Gupta which was registered as Case no.26548/2014 in the court of

Hon’ble Civil Judge Sr. Dvn, Gurugram. This case was dismissed as

withdrawn on 09.10.2015 at the instance of Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja, but

before that on 13.04.2015 Mr. Vivek Gupta coerced and arm-twisted

your petitioner into signing a No Objection Certificate. A copy of the

said NOC is attached as Annexure P-2. In the said NOC your

petitioner is absolving Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja, more specifically the

para no. 7 of the said NOC states “ That I undertake to give

statement in the court including the Hon’ble High Court and/or

police station for quashing/withdrawl of the FIR/complaint

respectively.”

6. That it is submitted that if we apply the above facts to the present FIR

under question it instantly does not stand the test of legal scrutiny as

admittedly the instant FIR was lodged at the instance of Mr. Jetha

Nand Saluja who had suprressed the material fact as stated herein

above, and your petitioner is not a contesting party in any of the cases

filed by or against Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja.

7. It is also pertinent to mention that your petitioner came in contact with

the company known as M/S Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd. through its

website on the internet advertising for sale/purchase of properties(a

copy of the said website is enclosed herewith). He met Mr. Subhash

 9

Kumar who allured and induced him to book 2BHK properties 900 sq.

yard project in Sector-14, Gurugram, which after deliberations at his

residence your petitioner booked. Dr. Karan Anand met the petitioner in

his office at 36A, Jacaranda Marg, DLF Phase-II, Gurugram and told that

the flat he had booked has been sold to someone else and that he has

been shifted to new 2BHk flat on the Ground floor of Plot no. 69/8, Old

DLF, Sector-14, Gurugram on 22.04.2013. The agreement to sale was

executed for purchase of ground floor and the earlier payment was also

adjusted. In October-November 2013 Dr. Karan Anandcalled to inform

that the construction of flats has been kept on hold as there is no other

buyer hence under the same agreement to sell my 2BHk flat booking is

being shifted on a property admeasuring 240 sq. yards to which I

agreed. The petitioner made the following payments; (copy of the Bank

Statement is enclosed herewith as)

S. no. Cheque no. Date of Payment Amount

1. 66956 11.09.2012 51,000/-
2. 266966 23.04.2013 10,00,000/-
3. 477487 03.06.2013 5,00,000/-
4. 477491 05.07.2013 1,00,000/-
5. 477495 27.08.2013 4,00,000/-
Total 20,51,000/-

8. Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja Managing Director of M/s. Real Gold Builders

Pvt. Ltd. represented to the petitioner that M/s. Real Gold Builders

Pvt. Ltd. had entered into collaboration agreement with Smt. Kaushal

Aggarwal W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal R/o House no. 106 R,

New Colony, Gurugram dtd 05.01.2013. As per the terms of the

 10

alleged agreement, Smt. Kaushal Aggarwal handed over vacant

physical possession of the subject property to the said Mr. Suresh

Kumar Ahuja for construction and development. Copy of the

collaboration agreement dtd 05.01.2013 is attached herewith

as_________.

9. That Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja was working in cohorts with Mr. Jetha

Nand Saluja and his brother Mr. Rajinder Kumar Saluja. On 25 th

October 2013, the plot no. 69/4, near Old DLF Colony, Gurugram was

sold by the Smt. Kaushal Aggarwal W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal

to respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja for merely INR 38.40 lacs.

Copy of the sale deed is attached herewith as . Subsequently on 26 th

October 2013, respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja entered into

agreement to sell with Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja, MD of M/s Real Gold

builders (P) ltd. for a sum of INR 2.15 crores regarding the said plot in

question. This fact of agreement to sale has been mentioned by

respondent no. 2 in civil suits filed by him against the investors. Copy

of the agreement to sell is attached herewith as ______. This trio was in

business of entering into collaboration agreements with the owners

of the property and thereafter advertise sale for their portion of

share, as per the collaboration agreement with innocent purchasers

like the petitioner and later show some defect in the title and project

to the purchasers to scare them that they may end up losing 100% of

their money, so better for them was to settle for 50% of the payments

made and drop the dispute.

 11

10. That sometime in October 2013, Dr. Karan Anand an employee of M/s

Real gold Builders Pvt. Ltd. informed the petitioner that M/s Real

Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd was facing financial difficulties and will have to

stop further construction, thereafter series of meetings took place

between the petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja at his residence

D-157, Narmada Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi. It is pertinent to

state that in all the meetings that took place respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha

Nand Saluja and Mr. Rajinder Kumar Saluja were also physically

present on the side of Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja.

11. That Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja by the way of fraud collected money

from the petitioner and other investors and handed it over to Mr.

Jetha Nand Saluja, which he used for making payment of sale

consideration amount to Smt. Kaushal Aggarwal and Smt. Sunita

Aggarwal for purchase of the “subject property”.

12. That in the month of January 2014, Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja went

absconding and Smt. Kaushal Aggarwal and respondent no.2 Mr.

Jetha Nand Saluja informed the petitioner and other investors that

they may enter into a fresh agreement wth respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha

Nand Saluja and forget about the monies already paid to Mr. Suresh

Kumar Ahuja.

13. That your petitioner and other investors fearing the deviousness of

Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja and respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja

filed a Police Complaint before PS Civil Lines, Gurugram, FIR No. 372

dtd 01.05.2014 which was registered against Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja,

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Saluja, Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja and Dr. Karan Anand.
 12

The Petitioner also came to know that Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja had

entered into agreement to sell with Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja for the

subject property the next day of his alleged purchase.

It is pertinent to mention that Sh. Rajinder Kumar Saluja is the real

brother of Respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja and is also the

attesting witness on the agreement to sell executed between

Respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja and M/s Real Gold Builders

Pvt. Ltd., for the plot situated at 69/4 Old DLF, Sector-14, Gurugram

admeasuring 240 sq. yards on 26.10.2013 for INR 2.15 crores.

14. That on 07.03.2014 Respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja filed Civil

Suits against the petitioner and other investors claiming exclusive

ownership of the plot in question. In April 2015, Mr. Vivek Gupta came

to your petitioner and other investors on behalf of respondent no.2

Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja for settlement of the amount paid by the

investors to M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of flats

as advetised by M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner fearing

that he will not be able to recover the whole amount that he paid

agreed to settle with Mr. Vivek Gupta. The petitioner was given INR

10lacs in cash out of the INR 20.51 lacs that he paid to M/s Real Gold

Builders Pvt. Ltd without any receipt. After the exchange of

settlement amount the petitioner signed the above mentioned

NOC/affidavits which were already prepared at the instance of

respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja and executed the transfer

rights in favor of Mr. Vivek Gupta and handed over the original
 13

agreement to sell and the original receipts of payments to Mr. Vivek

Gupta.

15. That after the signing of NOC/affidavits the petitioner had no right,

title or interest left in the said property, neither was he part of any of

the Criminal Cases pending against respondent no.2.

16. That the petitioner was surprised to receive a call from PS Sector-14,

Gurugram regarding the FIR filed by respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand

Saluja and that too after four years of settlement.

17. That in the FIR no.523 dtd 14.11.2018 no enquiry was done till

October 2019 and it was around the last week of September that the

petitioner got to know about the existence of such FIR in which he is

falsely implicated by respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja who

himself committed insidious acts to cheat the petitioner and other

investors out of their monies and to harass them by filing FIR on the

basis of false information given by him to the Police.

18. The petitioner states that the foloowing money transactions took

place between Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Saluja

and respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja which is clearly

establishing their collusion;

Date Mode Sender Beneficiary Amount

07.12.2011 RTGS(PNB) Mr.Jetha Mr.Suresh 3,00,000/-

Nand Saluja Kumar Ahuja

07.12.2011 RTGS(SBP) Mr.Jetha M/s Real gold 2,50,000/-

Nand Saluja
07.12.2011 RTGS(PNB) Mr.Rajinder Mr.Suresh 2,50,000/-

Saluja Kumar Ahuja

13.03.2012 RTGS(PNB) Mr.Rajinder Mr.Suresh 3,50,000/-
 14

Saluja Kumar Ahuja

13.03.2012 Cheque Mr.Rajinder Mr.Suresh 1,50,000/-

Saluja Kumar Ahuja

21.07.2012 Cash Mr.Suresh 3,00,000/-

Kumar Ahija

(IFFCO

Chowk) by

hand

19. That it is pertinent to mention that Ms. Alka rani is the real

sister of respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja and Mr. rajinder Saluja

and her known address is the same as that of her brothers. She is

maintaining account no. 488 with Canara Bank, Naraina, New Delhi

and with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tagore School, Mayapuri, New

Delhi having account no. 52142151002373. Following are the

transactions that took place between M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd

and Ms. Alka Rani, Mr. Rajinder Saluja and Ms. Anita Aggarwal;

Date Mode Sender Beneficiary Amount

16.12.2011 Cheque Ms.Anita Aggarwal M/s Real 2,50,000/-

Gold
30.05.2012 Cheque Mr.Rajinder Saluja M/s Real 2,50,000/-

Gold
09.06.2012 Cheque Ms.Alka Rani M/s Real 11,00,000/-

Gold
 15

20. That the following money transactions in which funds were

diverted b y M/s Real Gold Buildrs Pvt. Ltd. to the following persons:

Date Mode Sender Beneficiary Amount

23.12.2011 Cheque M/s Real Gold Ms.Anita 5,00,000/-

Builders Aggarwal
06.02.2012 Cheque Do Mr.Anil Kr. 4,00,000/-

Yadav
03.04.2012 Cheque Do Do 2,50,000/-
04.06.2012 Cheque Do Ms.Sahiba 30,00,000/-

Khandelwal
04.06.2012 Cheque Do Do 6,50,000/-
09.06.2012 Cheque Do Ms. Jai Devi 2,50,000/-
18.062012 Cheque Do Mr.Rajinder 2,50,000

Saluja
21.09.2012 Cheque Do Mr.Vinod 3,00,000/-

Kumar

Aggarwal
25.09.2012 RTGS Do Mr.Rajinder 8,50,000/-

Saluja
25.09.2012 RTGS Do Mr.Rajinder 6,50,000/-

Saluja
28.09.2012 RTGS Do Mr.Vinod 5,00,000/-

Kumar

Aggarwal
22.10.2012 RTGS Do Do 4,00,000/-
09.11.2012 Cheque Do Do 2,00,000/-
22.03.2013 Cheque Do Do 1,35,000/-
14.05.2013 Cheque Do Dr.Karan 1,50,000/-

Anand
09.07.2013 NEFT Do Do 91,500/-
18.07.2013 NEFT Do Do 1,22,800/-
26.08.2013 NEFT Do Do 1,22,800/-
05.09.2013 NEFT Do Do 1,22,800/-
 16

It is pertinent to mention that Ms. Jai Devi, who received Rs.

2,50,000/- on 09.06.2012 from M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd. was

the erstwhile pwner of the property situated at plot no. 69/8 in

Khasra No.4236/1748, Old DLF, Sector-14, Gurugram, admeasuring

114 sq. yards, and the same was sold by her to Mr. Rajinder Saluja the

brother of respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja.

21. That the petitioner submits that there was an attesting witness

Mr. Neelmani Shrivastava R/o D-494, Pul Prahalad Pur, New Delhi,

whose signatures are appended on the following documents:

a. collaboration agreement for 69/4 Old DLF Sector-14, Gurugram

between Mrs. Kaushal Aggarwal & M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd

through Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja MD,

b. the agreement to sell between M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd and

Mr. Sandeep Sharma(one of the investors in the property)

c. agreement to sell between M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd and

Mrs. Sangeeta Srivastava.

d. sale deed executed by Mrs. Jai Devi erstwhile owner of 69/8 Old

DLF, Sector-14, Gurugram in favor of Mr. Rajinder Kumar Saluja.

22. That there was another witness Mr. Amit James who gave two

different addresses when he witnessed the following documents:

a. Collaboration agreement between Mrs. Kaushal Aggarwal and M/s

Real gold Builders Pvt. Ltd through Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja MD.

b. Agreement to sell between M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd and

Mrs. Sangeeta Srivastava.

 17

23. That it is respectfully submitted that the bare perusal of the

factual submissions made here in above makes it ample clear that the

instant case/FIR does not stand the test of legal scrutiny and the

continuation of the proceedings are an abuse of process of law. The

person who lodged the instant case/FIR is not an authorized person.

Thus, it is most humbly submitted for the kind intervention and to

quash the instant case/FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings

arising there from.

24. That it is submitted that in view of the factual position narrated

here in above , it is submitted that the petitioner prays for quashing of

the instant case/FIR No. 523 (supra) and all the consequential

proceedings arising there from, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-

i) That it is submitted that the instant case/FIR and the subsequent

proceedings arising there from are liable to be quashed by this

Hon’ble Court being grossly illegal and against the principles of

natural justice. A bare perusal of the contents of the FIR reveals that

vide the allegations leveled, it has been alleged that the petitioner and

other accused persons conspired against respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha

Nand Saluja and blackmailed him as well by starting disputes in the

said property to get the possession of the same. With these

allegations, Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120B of IPC have been

invoked. The bare persual of the real facts of the case and the fraud

committed by respondent no.2 alongwith his brother Mr. Rajinder

Kumar Saluja and Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja makes it clear for the
 18

Hon’ble Court to see through the baseless allegations leveled against

the petitioner and continuation of the same therein is clearly an abuse

of process of law, therefore, the kind intervention of this Hon’ble court

is required to prevent the abuse of process of law.

ii) That it is respectfully submitted that from the perusal of the instant

case/FIR, that the petitioner signed an NOC on 13 th April 2015 and

transferred all his right of allotment to Mr. Vivek Gupta who

represented himself as the agent of respondetn no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand

Saluja relinquishing all his rights, titles to the property in question.

The petitioner submits that out of the payment made by him of INR

20.51 lacs he only got INR 10 lacs in the settlement which the

petitioner agreed to accept as ‘something is better than nothing’ and

Mr. Suresh Kumar Ahuja was absconding and nowhere to be found so

the petitioner as a last resort agreed to settle with Mr. Vivek Gupta

who represented respondent no.2 Mr. Jetha Nand Saluja.

Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment passed by this

Hon’ble Court in the case titled as Harmela Ram Vs. State of

Haryana cited as 2013 (3) RCR (Crl.) 141 wherein this Hon’ble

Court while taking note of this very fact that the FIR was got lodged

by a person who was not authorised, the FIR as well as the

subsequent proceedings arising there from were quashed. Thus, the

impugned case/FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising there

from are liable to be quashed.

 19

iii) That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is not a party to

any pending legal proceedings of the property in question. The

petitioner withdrew his complaint against respondent no.2 after

signing the NOC which the petitioner never received any copy of until

this year when the Copy of the FIR was sent to his home around

September-October 2019. The petitioner after signing the NOC and

accepting the settlement amount did not interfere in the pending legal

proceedings of the said property nor did he physically interfere with

the said property in question. This FIR is an abuse of process of law,

therefore, the instant case/FIR and of the subsequent proceedings

arising there from are liable to be quashed.

iv) That it is respectfully submitted that the respondent no.2 has filed the

FIR just to harass the petitioner and to coerce the petitioner into

losing his hard earned money. After a bare reading of the FIR, it

becomes very clear that all the allegations are false and the whole

story is fabricated and concocted. The real sham was already done

way back in 2012 when M/s Real Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd. advertised

about the selling of plots on their website luring the investors into

buying disputed , defected property and double dealing the same

while being in collusion with one and another.

25. That it is submitted that in case, State of Haryana and

others, Appellants Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR

1992 Supreme Court 604, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed

as under:-
 20

"In the following categories of cases, the High Court may in

exercise of powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to

prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and

that too in the rarest of rare cases.

I) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or

the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima face constitute any

offence or make out a case against the accused.

II) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other

materials, if any, accompanying the F.IR do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers

under S. 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a

Magistrate within the purview of S. 155 (2) of the Code.

III) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused.

IV) 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

a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155 (2) of the Code.

 21

V) 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.

VI) 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 a specific

provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing

efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

VII) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

malafide and/or where the proceeding 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."

26. That it is respectfully submitted that cautioning against issuing

of process so that it should not be an instrument in the hands of the

private complainant as vendetta to harass the person needlessly, the

Apex Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Surendra Prasad

Sinha, [1993] Supp. (1) SCC 499 had this to say in para 6 :- "It is also

salutary to note that judicial process should not be an instrument of

oppression or needless harassment. The complaint was laid

impleading the Chairman, the Managing Director of the Bank by name

and a host of officers. There lies responsibility and duty on the

 22

magistracy to find whether the concerned accused should be legally

responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law

casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the

persons impleaded then only process would be issued. At that stage

the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion

and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into

consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in

the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons

needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law

and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it

would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. Considered

from any angle we find that the respondent had abused the process

and laid complaint "against the appellants without any prima facie

case to harass them from vendetta."

27. Similarly in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v.

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 692, the

Apex Court has stated that "The legal position is well settled that

when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test

to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted

allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the

court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a

particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest

of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis

that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in

the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak

 23

and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a

criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into

consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding

even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this

Hon'ble High Court, referred to above, are fully applicable to the facts

of this case.

28. That it is submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances

narrated herein above, the petitioner has left with no other equal or

efficacious remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of filing

the present petition.

29. That it is submitted that no such or similar petition has been

filed either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India. No such petition is pending before the Ld. Sessions Court also.
 24

PRAYER

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that present petition filed by

the petitioner may kindly be allowed and case/F.I.R. No. 523 dated

14.11.2018, registered under Section 420,467,468,471 and 120B IPC

at Police Station Sector-14, Gurugram, Haryana (Annexure P-1) and all

the subsequent proceedings arising there from may kindly be

quashed as the same is an abuse of the process of the law and taking

cognizance of it is itself bad. Only a complaint at the instant of

authorized person is maintainable, as held by this Hon’ble Court in

the case titled as Harmela Ram vs. State of Haryana cited as 2013

(3) RCR (Crl.) 141, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

AND/OR

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may

kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.

It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present

petition, further proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court may kindly be

stayed, in the interest of Justice.

CHANDIGARH: (ANKUR MITTAL) & (AMIT GUPTA)

DATED: 23.07.2014 ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
 25

Enrollment Nos. P/1296/01 & P/788/11

 26

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No…………. of 2014

In Crl. Misc. No M. ………………of 2014

Jaspal Singh

…….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

……Respondents

Affidavit of Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Gurdial Singh, owner M/s Jaspal Singh

Stone Crusher, Village & Post office Bharatgarh, District Roopnagar,

R/o H. No. 940 Phase-3B2, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:-

1. That the accompanying petition has been drafted under the

instructions of the deponent.

2. That the deponent has read the petition and the contents thereof from

Paras no.1 to 13 and the same are true and correct.

 27

3. That it is submitted that no such or similar petition has been filed

either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

No such petition is pending before the Ld. Sessions Court also.

Place: Chandigarh

Dated: 23.07.2014 DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified that the contents of Para No.1 to 3 of my affidavit are

true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing

has been concealed there from.

Place: Chandigarh

Dated: 23.07.2014 DEPONENT

 28

Annexure: P-1

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)

1 Distt.: Roopnagar P.S.: Kiratpur Sahib Year: 2012 F.I.R. No. 34

Dated 03.04.2012

2. Act & Sections: IPC 1860 – Sections 379, 411

Section 21 (1) Mining & Mineral Act, 1957

3. Occurrence of Offence:

(a) Day: Prior to Tuesday Date From: Prior to 03.04.12

Date to: -

Time period: In day time Time from: Time to:

(b) Information received at Police Station on date and

time 03.04.2012 at 08:50 P.M.

(c) General Diary Reference Entry No. 48

Time: 08:50 P.M.

4. Type of Information: Written (for stealing of mining)

5. Place of occurrence: Jaspal Stone Crasher, Bharatgarh

 Distance & direction from P.S.: South/10 kms.

Beat No.: 44

 Address: Village Bharatgarh, P.S. Kiratpur Sahib, District Roopnagar.

 29

 In case outside the limit of Police Station, then name of the Police

Station:_ District…..

6. Particulars of Complainant/Informant:

 Name : Devi Dass (S/O) Kaka Ram

 Date/Year of Birth: -

(c) Nationality: Indian

(d) Passport No.____________.

Date of Issuance: ______.

Place of Issuance: _______.

(e) Occupation: Mining Guard

(f) Address: Mining Office Mohali, District Mohali

7. Details of known/suspected accused with full particulars (attach

separate sheet, if required).

Jaspal, Owner Stone Crusher, Bharatgarh, Village Bharatgarh, P.S.

Kiratpur Sahib, District Roopnagar.

8. Reason of delay in reporting by the complainant/

informant: No Delay

9. Particulars of properties stolen/involved.

10. Total value of property stolen.

11. Inquest report/UD case, if any:

12. F.I.R. Content (attach separate sheet, if required):

 30

Copy of the Statement, “To, The Station House Officer, P.S. Kiratpur

Sahib. Subject: Complaint regarding illegal extraction of small

minerals. Sir, it is submitted that I Devi Dass S/o Sh. Kaka Ram is

posted as Mining Guard in Mining Office. Today on 03.04.2012 an

inquiry was conducted by going along with Mining Officer to Jaspal

Stone Crasher in Village Bharatgarh. From the inquiry it was found

that the raw material stored at the aforesaid Stone Crasher is that of

stealing which all raw material has been gathered by illegal

extraction, which is illegal extraction of the reta-bajri which is in gross

violation of the Mining Act. Therefore, appropriate legal action may be

taken against them. Sd/- Devi Das, Mining Guard Office Mohali

03.04.2012. HC Sohan Singh 374 may inquire and take action. Sd/-

Atul Soni, Inspector, SHO, P.S. Kiratpur Sahib Date 03.04.2012. Action

Taken by Police:- Today I/HC along with HC Hoshiar Singh 1693, PHG

Avtar Singh were present near the canal bridge in search of suspicious

characters and vehicles when Devi Dass, Mining Guard, Mohali Office

came present and gave a complaint to me/HC. From the perusal of the

contents of the complaint and inquiry an offence under section 379,

411 IPC, 21 (1) Miners Act, 1957 is made out. Hence the complaint is

sent by hand through PHG Avtar Singh to Police Station Kiratpur

Sahib for getting registered a case against the owner of the Jaspal

Stone Crasher. The case number may be intimated after registration of

case. I/HC along with the complainant and colleagues proceeds

towards the scene of crime. Sd/- Sohan Singh HC 374, P.S. Kiratpur

Sahib 03.04.2012 at Canal Bridge, Kiratpur Sahib 8:40 P.M. On receipt

 31

of it the aforesaid case was registered for the above mentioned

offence against the aforesaid accused and the necessary formalities

were got completed. The MHC was directed to complete the record.

I/C Control Room, Roopnagar is being informed through Wireless

Message. Copies of the FIR will be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and

other senior officers by post. The original complaint along with case

file is being sent through PHG Avtar Singh to HC Sohan Singh No. 374

on the spot.

13. Action taken/Since the above report reveals commission of offence(s)

U/S as mentioned at Item No. 2:

 Registered the case and took up the investigation.

 Directed Sohan Singh, HC No. 374/R to take up the investigation.

(Name of I.O.)

 Refused investigation due to :

 Transferred to P.S. ____ --____ District ______ -- ______, on point of

jurisdiction.
F.I.R. read over to the complainant/informant admitted to be correctly

recorded and a copy given to the complainant/informant, free of cost.

R.O.A.C. Sd/- Balvir Singh SI

Name: Balvir Singh

Rank: SI No. 562/PR

15. Date & time of dispatch: By Post on 03.04.12

to the court. At 09:40 P.M.

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE & CORRECT TRANSLATION

 32

Advocate
 33

Annexure P-2

From

General Manager-cum-Mining Officer,

District Industry Centre, Roop Nagar

at SAS Nagar (Mohali).

To

The Incharge,

Police Post, Bharatgarh, District Roop Nagar.

Memo No.: 2894 dated 05.11.2012

Subject: Regarding case/FIR No. 34 dated 03.04.2012.

With reference to your letter dated 26.10.2012.

2. Vide the letter under reference in the above mentioned matter

dated 03.04.2012, record has been summoned by her good self with respect

to the duty of Sh. Devi Dass mining guard in the Bharatgarh area. With this

regard it is informed that the mining guard/helper appointed in this office

only for the purpose of reporting the checking of minor minerals/illegal

mining. As far as the question of authority in getting the present case

registered is concerned, it is informed that the authority to get the

registered against the accused persons is vested only with the mining

officer but the mining guard or helper can only report with regard to the

illegal mining conducted by persons/owner of land/owner of vehicle owner

of stone crusher upon which the next action can be taken only by the

mining officer.
 34

Sd/-

General Manager-cum-Mining Officer,

District Industry Centre, Roop Nagar

at SAS Nagar (Mohali).

TRUE TRANSLATION

ADVOCATE
 35

Annexure: P-3

From

General Manager-cum-Mining Officer,

District Industry Centre, Roop Nagar

at Ajitgarh (Mohali).

To

The Senior Superintendent of Police,

Roop Nagar.

Memo No.: 2039 Dated 14.08.2012

Subject: Regarding cancellation of FIR No. 34 dated 03.04.2012

registered at P.S. Kiratpur Sahib.

Reference: Regarding application dated 09.08.2012 of M/s Jaspal Singh

Stone Crasher, Bharatgarh, District Roop Nagar, a copy of which

had been sent to you also (copy attached).

2. In connection with the aforesaid subject it is requested that

during the months of April, May and June 2012 the District Administration

had taken action on large scale against the illegal stone crushers/screening

plants being run and had registered cases against them. Now it has been

decided at the Government level that those stone crushers with whom

illegal stock is there, after obtaining due royalty/cost of mineral, approval is

given to process this stock. In this connection, Director, Industry &

Commerce, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide his letter No. GLG/P/G-1/Cabinet Sub-

Committee/2012/10915-B dated 27.06.2012, had written a letter to

Deputy Commissioner, Roop Nagar whose copy had been sent by Deputy
 36

Commissioner, Roop Nagar to you vide Endst. No. 9469-76 dated

28.06.2012.

Now in this case, in reference to the aforesaid decision of the

Government from the mining point of view while compounding the offence

U/S 23 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957

against 21000 cft. Material Rs. 33600/- of royalty and price of mineral had

been obtained from M/s Jaspal Singh Stone Crusher, Bharatgarh, District

Roop Nagar. Therefore, it is requested that if the FIR No. 34 dated

03.04.2012 registered at P.S. Kiratpur Sahib in this case in cancelled then

this office will have no objection.

Sd/-
General Manager-cum-Mining Officer,
District Industry Centre, Roop Nagar
at Ajitgarh (Mohali).
Endst. No.: Dated:

A copy of the above is forwarded to the following for information and

further necessary action:-
1. Director, Industry & Commerce Department, Punjab (GLG),
Chandigarh.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Roop Nagar.

Sd/- General Manager-cum-Mining Officer,

District Industries Centre, Roop Nagar.

TRUE TRANSLATION

ADVOCATE
 37

Annexure: P-4

P.S. Kiratpur Sahib District Roopnagar

Challan Form U/S 173 Cr.P.C.

Case No. 34 Dated 03.04.2012 U/S 379, 411 IPC Sec. 21 (1) Mining Act,

1957 P.S. Kiratpur Sahib.

1) Name & Address of the Complainant:

Devi Das, Mining Guard, Mohali Office

2) Details of accused who have not been challaned: NIL

3) Details of accused who have been challaned:

Details of accused who are under arrest: NIL

4) Details of accused who are on bail:

Jaspal Singh S/o Gurdayal Singh, Caste Jatt R/o H.No. 740, Phase 3B2,

Mohali, District Mohali.

5) Case Property : As per fard

6) List of Witnesses : As attached

7. Brief Circumstances:

Sir,

The brief circumstances of this case are that on 03.04.2012

complainant Devi Das, Mining Guard by appearing before Sh. Atul

Soni, P.S. Kiratpur Sahib had given a complaint regarding illegal

 38

extraction of small minerals which was marked to HC Sohan Singh No.

374 for inquiry the contents of which are, “To, The Station House

Officer, P.S. Kiratpur Sahib. Subject: Complaint regarding illegal

extraction of small minerals. Sir, it is submitted that I Devi Das S/o Sh.

Kaka Ram is posted as Mining Guard in Mining Office. Today on

03.04.2012 an inquiry was conducted by going along with Mining

Officer to Jaspal Stone Crasher in Village Bharatgarh. From the

inquiry it was found that the raw material stored at the aforesaid

Stone Crasher is that of stealing which all raw material has been

gathered by illegal extraction, which is illegal extraction of the reta-

bajri which is in gross violation of the Mining Act. Therefore,

appropriate legal action may be taken against them. Sd/- Devi Das,

Mining Guard Office Mohali 03.04.2012. That Sh. Atul Soni, Inspector,

SHO, P.S. Kiratpur Sahib marked the complaint to HC Sohan Singh No.

374. HC Sohan Singh No. 374 along with the police party reached the

spot and after inquiring into the complaint wrote the police

proceedings on which the case was got registered. During the visit to

the scene naksha mauka najri was prepared, photographs of the spot

were got clicked, the raw material lying in the crasher was taken into

custody and was got checked by the raw material experts, the raw

material and the crasher was handed over to the Mining Guard. HC

Harjit Singh 1493 on 04.05.2013 arrested the accused Jaspal Singh in

this case on the orders of Hon’ble Session Judge Roopnagar and then

released him on bail. On 27.05.2012, as per letter No. 23694-96/43

dated 11.05.2012 of the SSP/Roopnagar, in the present case as per

 39

the orders of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding in

the mining cases, further investigation was not carried out. Now on

receipt of verbal orders of Hon’ble Court, the further necessary

investigation of this case was carried out by HC Harjit Singh 1493

who U/S 22 of the Mining and Mineral Act, 1957 obtained a

complaint from the Mining Office. From the so far investigation of HC

Harjit Singh No. 1493, statements of the witnesses, perusal of the

naksha mauka najri and questioning from the accused Jaspal Singh

sufficient evidence has come on record for preparing challan U/S 173

Cr.PC against the accused Jaspal Singh for offence U/S 379, 411 IPC

Section 21(2) of the Mining and Minerals Act, 1957. Hence challan

U/S 173 Cr.PC is prepared against the accused and the same is

submitted in the court for consideration. The witnesses in Khana No.

6 are present and will depose. They can be called by summoning. The

challan may be considered and the accused may be appropriately

punished.

Sd/- SHO,

P.S. Kiratpur Sahib

Date 23.05.2013

Detail of Enclosures:-

1. Challan Form U/S 173 Cr.PC - 02 pages

2. List of Witnesses - 01 page

3. Original Complaint - 01 page

4. Naksha Mauka Najri - 01 page

5. Fard Bramadgi, Reta, Bajri - 01 page

 40

6. Fard Jamatalashi - 01 page

7. Fard Vajuaat Griftaari and Itlahnama - 01 page

8. Photos - 01 page

9. Complaint U/S 22 of the Mining and Minerals Act – 01 page

10. Identity Certificate - 01 page

11. Punishment Slip - 01 page

12. Statement U/S 161 Cr.PC - 07 pages

Sd/- SHO,

P.S. Kiratpur Sahib

Date 23.05.2013

TRUE TRANSLATION

ADVOCATE
 41

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M ……………… of 2014

Jaspal Singh
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
……Respondents

Total Court Fee Rs. 20.00

Urgent Court Fee Rs. 03.00
----------------------
Rs. 23.00

(ANKUR MITTAL) & (AMIT GUPTA)

ADVOCATES
CHANDIGARH: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
DATED: 23.07.2014 Enrollment Nos. P/1296/01 & P/788/11