Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Mohan Garg vs Kk Gupta And Ors on 20 September, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124830
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M) -1-
(110)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.09.2024
KRISHAN MOHAN GARG
... Petitioner
Versus
K.K. GUPTA & ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate and
Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
CRM-36852-2024
This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 485 days in filing the present petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and the delay of 485 days is hereby condoned.
CRM-36853-2024
The present application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner
for restoration of the main case i.e. CRM-M-40043-2014 which was
dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 13.04.2023 passed by this
Court.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124830
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M) -2-
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by this Court is restored to its
original number.
CRM-M-40043-2014
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
for quashing of the order dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure P-3) whereby the
Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala has set aside the order dated 26.07.2011
(Annexure P-2) whereby the charges were framed against the respondents
under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant Krishan Mohan filed a complaint
under sections 195, 465, 468, 471/472 IPC read with section 120-B of IPC
against K.K. Gupta and Vijay Kumar Goel with the averments that-
"Complainant is the Managing Trustee of Trust Hargolal
Dharamshala, Ambala Cantt./Ambala Sadar. He was appointed
trustee of the said Trust on 25.05.1988 and his appointment was
confirmed on 10.10.1989. The accused no.1 and 2 are also
trustees of that Trust. Complainant was given the charge of
Hargolal Dharamshala Trust and since then he was maintaining
the affairs of the Dharamshala to the entire satisfaction of the
public and other trustees till September 2000 when the accused
took forcible possession of the Trust from him. Right from the year
1974 to 1988 the Dharamshala was in miserable condition as the
accused failed to maintain the Dharamshala, to keep its proper
account and also failed to improve its condition and the entire
building was in dilapidated condition. The complainant since his
childhood was a devotee of Satsang organized by Mahavir
Satsang Sabha and organizing the Satsang in the Hargolal
Dharamshal for the last 50 years and Ramayana Yagya is
organized every year at Ambala Cantt. wherein devotees from all
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124830
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M) -3-
over India were assembled. He is associated with the Satsang
Sabha for the last 37 years and Bal Krishan Malik was religious
head of the Satsang Sabha. When it had become almost impossible
for the Sabha to organize Satsang, the devotees of the Sabha
alongwith complainant and Bal Krishan Malik talked to the
accused and other trustee Ved Parkash (since deceased) that
Dharamshala should be renovated. The accused showed their
inability and flatly refused to spend even a single penny on the
Dharamshala and they further disclosed that they wanted to sell
the Dharamshala property as they cannot afford to maintain it.
The complainant Bal Krishan Malik requested the accused and
other trustees not to sell the Dharamshala property and offered to
maintain the same by the Satsang Sabha and to carry out major
repairs and renovation work. and accordingly, the complainant
and Bal Krishan Malik were inducted as trustees by the Hargolal
Dharamshala Trust on 25.05.1988. The complainant was
appointed as the Managing Trustee and the charge of the Trust
was handed over to him alongwith original resolution book. The
resolution appointing the complainant as Managing trustee was
signed by the accused alongwith late Ved Parkash and Bal
Krishan Malik. Thereafter, the Sabha collected huge amount of
money from its devotees/followers and Rs.One lac were
contributed by the complainant and more than Rs.10.00 lacs were
spent on the Dharamshala in the year 1989 and it was completely
renovated. The complainant also got vacated the first floor of the
Dharamshala from Master Nand Lal who was inducted as tenant
by the accused. The complainant performed his duties efficiently
for proper management of the Dharamshala since his induction as
Managing Trustee. He kept all the accounts properly and also
regularly prepared the statement of income and expenditure. It
was being used for various purposes and nominal charges were
charged for marriages. At the time of induction of the complainant
as trustee, a suit titled as "Prem Chand versus Vijay Kumar" was
pending in the court wherein Prem Chand alongwith Lal Chand
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124830
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M) -4-
Jaiswal had prayed for appointment of new trustees and settle the
scheme for proper administration of the trust. The factum of
pendency of said suit was never brought to the notice of
complainant by the accused. However, when he came to know
about pendency of that suit, he moved an application under order
1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading him as a party which was
allowed by the Hon`ble High Court and he was arrayed as
defendant no.3. Though, the accused and Ved Parkash (since
deceased) were the trustees but they did not pursue the said case
nor produced any account books nor appeared to depose and
rather helped Prem Chand who wanted to grab the Dharamshala
under the garb of that suit. The said suit was hotly contested by
the complainant wherein ld. Additional District Judge, Ambala
vide order dated 23.08.1995 held that Dharamshala is properly
managed by the complainant and the suit was dismissed. It was
further held in that judgment that Hargolal Dharamshala Trust is
not a private trust but it is a public trust. Since 1988 the accused
persons did not take any interest whatsoever either in the
Dharamshala or in the trust affairs and the complainant is
exclusively manging the trust properties for better enjoyment of
the same by the public at large. During the year 1998-1999 he
spent about Rs.2.00 lacs and constructed a new wing on the first
floor of the Dharamshala comprising five rooms and four
bathrooms and toilets. In the year 1999 when the complainant was
maintaining the Dharamshala, the accused with certain anti social
elements have started keeping evil eye on the Dharamshala
property and wanted to grab the same and in order to accomplish
their evil design,they have illegally inducted certain persons
alleging them to be trustees of the Dharamshala trust and further
forged some resolutions specifically resolution dated 18.09.1991.
The complainant has all the meetings vide his letter dated
17.09.1991 on 18.09.1991 and that was attended by the
complainant, accused and Ved Parkash. The said meeting was
adjourned after passing condolence resolution on the sad demise
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124830
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M) -5-
of Bal Krishan Malik, a member trustee and no other resolution
was passed and remaining agenda was kept for some other
meeting and it was the first meeting of the trustees after the
renovation of the Dharamshala and the original resolution book of
the trust was with the complainant and was to be maintained by
him. The accused with a view to grab the property of the
Dharamshala and to involve the complainant in false criminal
case have forged the resolution dated 18.09.1993 at a very later
stage, said resolution is not signed by the complainant. The said
resolution has not been produced by the accused ever before in the
suit titled as Prem Chand versus Vijay Kumar wherein the
complainant was a party to the suit. The accused no.1 in his
statement on oath in the civil suit titled as "K.M. Garg v. Vijay
Kumar" pending in the court of ld.Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Ambala Cantt. has tried to prove the same as Ex.DA3, thus the
accused have used the said forged resolution against the
complainant in various court proceedings."
3. The petitioner/complainant-Krishan Mohan Garg filed the
aforementioned complaint against the respondents under Sections 195, 465,
468, 471/472 read with Section 120-B on 17.03.2023.
4. The statement of complainant K.M. Garg was recorded in
preliminary evidence on 17.03.2003. The complainant in his preliminary
evidence produced Resolution dated 18.09.1991 Ex.C1 and stated that
resolution Ex.C1 is forged, prepared by both the accused and also placed on
the record Ex.C2 and statement of Krishan Kumar Gupta, Ex.C3. Thereafter
he closed his preliminary evidence on same day, 17.03.2003.
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124830
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M) -6-
5. Thereafter, both the accused were summoned under sections
465, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of IPC by the learned trial
court/Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 06.05.2003.
6. Pursuant to the summoning order, charges were framed against
the accused vide order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the JMIC, Ambala. The
copy of the said order is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.
7. The aforementioned order was challenged in a revision petition
by the respondents/accused. The said revision was allowed and the impugned
order framing charges was set aside. The copy of the order dated 10.03.2014
passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala is attached as Annexure P-3 to
the petition.
8. It is the aforementioned order which is under challenge in the
present petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the charges
had been rightly framed against the respondents/accused. In fact, the
Resolution dated 18.09.1991 had been forged by the accused so as to oust the
petitioner from the Trust. At the stage of framing of charges the appreciation
of the evidence could not be done. There was a delay in filing of the
complaint in the year 2003 as the complainant had come to know about the
forgery only after the litigation had started in the year 2000. He, therefore
prays that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. Admittedly, the allegations pertained to the forgery of a
Resolution dated 18.09.1991 the original of which has not been seen the light
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124830
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M) -7-
of the day. The complaint and the summoning order pertain to the year 2003.
The charges were framed in 2011 and the accused stood discharged in the
year 2014 after which the instant petition came to be filed.
12. Para 49 and 50 of the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2014 are
reproduced hereinbelow:-
49. The complainant was primarily working as Manager, only
looking after and managing the Dharamshala. The accused are
the owners and legal heirs of Shri Hargolal and his trust and
Ex.C1 does not speak any apprehension of his removal from the
trust, causing no lawful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain
to the accused and shows any intention on their part to create the
document.
50. Thus, after appraisal of the entire evidence of the complainant
as a whole no case of sufficient ground to frame the charge
against the accused is made out. The allegations appear to be
without any valid basis. There is no comparison of the document
Ex.C1 in the absence of original document in possession of the
complainant himself, he is still holding the record. Even, he has
been removed from the trust. The complaint was filed on
17.03.2003 after twelve years to challenge the resolution dated
18.09.1991, without any explanation. The complainant also filed a
suit for permanent injunction against the present accused
restraining them from dispossessing him from the Dharamshala,
which was later on dismissed in default and the order was never
challenged further by the complainant. His oral contention that
Ex.C1 is a forged document because it was not produced by him, is
not tenable in the absence of original resolution book which is in
his possession and not produced by him at any stage. However, he
admitted his presence in the meeting held on 18.09.1991 and
signatures on the presence-sheet. He has not signed on the
resolution itself can be determined by comparison with the
original resolution book, but he failed to do so. It is not
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124830
CRM-M-40043-2014 (O&M) -8-
specifically mentioned in his complaint that the accused wanted to
remove him from the Dharamshala and were causing loss to him
and wanted to use the property for their personal use. Rather, it
has been pleaded that the accused with the help of anti social
elements wanted to take the possession of the same, but he failed
to explain the names and involvement of those anti social
elements. He never took any action against those persons before
any competent authority nor intimated the police. There is no
other evidence to corroborate his version. Thus, prima facie no
case is made out against the accused.
13. In view of the fact that the original of the purportedly forged
document never came on record, no wrongful loss was caused to the
complainant and the accused themselves are the owners and legal heirs of
Shri Hargolal and his Trust, no offence can be said to have been committed
by them.
14. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
20.09.2024
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
