CRM-M No. 39705 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CRM-M No. 39705 of 2017
DATE OF DECISION :- March 01, 2018
Amarjit Singh Virk …Petitioner
State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present:- Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Kr. Yashwant Singh Rathore, Addl. P.P. UT, Chandigarh.
Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for respondents no. 4 to 6.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
petitioner Amarjit Singh Virk craving for issuance of a direction to
respondents no. 1 to 3 to file report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in F.I.R. No.
177 dated 20.9.2013 which has not been investigated by respondent no. 3 so
far as respondent no. 4 happens to be an influential person. Interalia in the
petition it is contended that in order to tarnish the image of the petitioner
due to a property dispute, respondent no. 5 as well as respondent no. 4
claiming himself to be power of attorney of respondent no. 5 had targeted
the petitioner repeatedly by filing false criminal cases which ultimately
resulted into acquittal of petitioner; that petitioner had been elected as
President of Non-Resident Indians, District Ropar. The office of NRI Sabha
is situated in the premises of Industrial plot No. C-140, Industrial Area,
Phase 7, Mohali; that petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with
respondent no. 5 and his son in the year 2004 and thereafter in the year
1 of 5
18-03-2018 00:32:25 :::
CRM-M No. 39705 of 2017 2
2005 paying the entire sale consideration by way of instruments/bank
transfers. In that way, a sum of rupees more than 96 lacs had been paid by
the petitioner out of which Rs.67 lacs is earnest money having been
received by the earlier owner Jiwan Singh, who is real brother of the
petitioner and after the said plot was transferred by Jiwan Singh in the name
of his son Harpreet Singh, further amount was transferred by way of bank
transfers/instruments. The petitioner is admittedly in possession of such
plot; that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell which was decreed ex-parte. However, later on the ex-
parte decree was set aside on appearance of respondent no. 5 and his son
and presently the case is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Mohali at the stage of evidence; that a false rape case was
got filed by respondent no. 4 bearing F.I.R. No. 226 dated 9.11.2011 under
Sections 376(2G), 392, 506, 347 read with Section 120-B IPC in which son
and wife of petitioner were made co-accused; another rape case was got
filed by respondent no. 4 through respondent no. 6 bearing F.I.R. No. 88
dated 13.7.2011 under Section 376 IPC with Police Station, Phase-I,
Mohali; that during filing of those false rape cases, petitioner was targeted
by respondents no. 4 to 6 by preparing false documents; that those
documents were submitted by respondent no. 4 to the press at the time of
press conference so as to take some stern action against the petitioner; that
petitioner had not committed any offence. The entire episode had been
created by respondents no. 4 and 5 so as to force the petitioner to
compromise the pending civil litigation; that those documents were also
submitted to IG of Police, Punjab who was heading Special Investigation
Team into investigation in F.I.R. No. 88/2011. Such documents submitted
2 of 5
18-03-2018 00:32:26 :::
CRM-M No. 39705 of 2017 3
by respondents no. 4 to 6 to the police were found to be false. Petitioner had
moved an application to respondent no. 3 for registration of the F.I.R. in that
regard. He had moved applications to respondent no. 2 and 3 also but no
F.I.R. was registered. Later on F.I.R. No. 177 dated 20.9.2013 was got
registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 506, 465 IPC read with
Section 120-B IPC with Police Station North, Sector-3, Chandigarh.
However, no further investigation in the matter has been conducted;
however no action was called for under influence of respondent no. 4.
According to the petitioner, both the false rape cases collapsed and
petitioner was honourably acquitted in those cases.
Petitioner prays that petition be allowed. Notice of this petition
was given to the respondents.
Learned State counsel has filed status report interalia stating
that the F.I.R. in question was registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on
instructions of JMIC U.T, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.9.2013; that the
documents were got verified and as per report received from authorities in
United Kingdom, finger print of the applicant as provided by Special
Investigation Team had been searched and those had not been found to be
identical on database to match any criminal record; that during the course of
investigation alleged Nawab Singh had produced photocopies of the
judgment of the Crown Court of ISLEWORTH, UK, marriage certificate of
Gurvinder Singh and Surinder Kaur and declaration of change of Name
Deed from Gurvinder Singh to Amarjit Singh. All those documents were
provided in United Kingdom. It is stated that during the course of
investigation it has come to the notice of police authorities that complainant
Amarjit Singh Virk had criminal record in United Kingdom. In the
3 of 5
18-03-2018 00:32:26 :::
CRM-M No. 39705 of 2017 4
judgment, name of accused Gurvinder Singh Virk which was printed has
been altered as Amarjit and there is hand written note on the top of the first
page indicating that indictment amended by order in respect of defendant
first name Surname but on the copy of sentence the name printed against
defendant is Amarjit Singh. Investigation revealed that Amarjit Singh Virk
was maintaining different United Kingdom Passports i.e. one in the name of
Gurvinder Singh Virk and other under the name of Amarjit Singh Virk.
Further more it has been intimated by the authorities in United Kingdom
that Amarjit Singh was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case in the
year 1986 regarding Passports in the name of Gurvinder Singh Virk and in
the name of Amarjit Singh Virk with different dates of birth.
In the reply filed by respondent no. 4 on behalf of respondents
no. 4 to 6, it has been contended that answering respondent no. 5 is a Senior
Citizen and is a permanent resident of United Kingdom. He is unable to visit
India as such he is pursuing all his litigation through respondent no. 4; that
the present application filed by petitioner deserves to be dismissed as it has
been filed on baseless and vague grounds.
In the written reply, background of the litigation among the
petitioner and answering respondents no. 4 to 6 has been given.
I have learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel
representing U.T Chandigarh and learned counsel representing respondents
no. 4 to 6 besides going through the record.
I am of the view that there is nothing to show that local police
is working under influence of respondent no. 4, that the investigation in the
case is not being carried out in a proper manner.
The petitioner is feeling aggrieved unnecessarily. However, it is
4 of 5
18-03-2018 00:32:26 :::
CRM-M No. 39705 of 2017 5
a matter of concern that a F.I.R. which was registered way back in the year
2013 has not reached its logical conclusion so far despite passing of more
than four years. After the conclusion of the investigation, the investigating
agency is to file final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. may be sending up
the accused to face trial or praying for cancellation of the F.I.R., but then it
is desirable that final report be prepared and filed in the Court at the earliest.
If on completion of investigation, challan is filed then the claim of plaintiff
would stand satisfied and if a cancellation report is filed then he would get
an opportunity to file protest petition. In addition to that he may file a
private complaint also, if so advised.
Therefore, the petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondents no. 1 to 3 to complete the investigation at the earliest and then
take further necessary action in the matter.
March 01, 2018
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
18-03-2018 00:32:26 :::