SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amarjit Singh Virk vs State Of U T And Ors on 1 March, 2018

CRM-M No. 39705 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 39705 of 2017
DATE OF DECISION :- March 01, 2018

Amarjit Singh Virk …Petitioner

Versus

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.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
March 01, 2018
p.singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
18-03-2018 00:32:26 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation