CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sr. No.262 1) Monica Widhani and others Ram Niwas Agrawal and another 2) Nikhil Singh and others Ram Niwas Agrawal and another 3) Ram Niwas Agrawal Narinder Singh Lamba and another CORAM: Present: -1340-2011 along with connected petitions IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.262 CRM-M-1340-2011 (O&M) Monica Widhani and others Versus Ram Niwas Agrawal and another CRM-M-2166-2011 (O&M) Nikhil Singh and others Versus Ram Niwas Agrawal and another CRM-M-22825-2012 (O&M Ram Niwas Agrawal Versus Singh Lamba and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Amarsh Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M Nos.1340 and 2166 of 2011. Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate, Ms. Bhawna Thakur, Advocate, and Mr. Yuwan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.22825 of 2012 Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, Ms. Shivani, Advocate, for the respondents in CRM-M No.2 Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana. along with connected petitions 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Date of Decision: 11.02.2025 ) .... Petitioners Versus ... Respondents ) ... Petitioners Versus ... Respondents M) .... Petitioner Versus ... Respondents TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, and Dudeja, Advocate, M Nos.1340 and 2166 of 2011. Kumar Garg, Advocate, Ms. Bhawna Thakur, Advocate, and Mr. Yuwan Singla, Advocate, M No.22825 of 2012. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, and M No.22825 of 2012. Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana. ... Respondents .... Petitioner ... Respondents MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA involved in all these 24.12.200 under Sections before the Court of the facts are being taken from setting aside the dated 02.11.2010, Annexure P summoned to face trial for the aforementioned offences. 2. 2.1. Brothers was partners, as Sukhbir was going out of the name of dealership was one of the partners resigned from of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ( was again deceased M.S. Lamba), Subhash Chand Go Agrawal/respondent no.1/complainant 2.2. BPCL about Auto Service which occurred in 1987 oust him from the -1340-2011 along with connected petitions TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) All these petitions are being decided together as the issue in all these pertains to the criminal complaint case no.445 07, titled Ram Niwas Agrawal v. under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial the facts are being taken from CRM-M-1340 setting aside the said criminal complaint, dated 02.11.2010, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the aforementioned offences. Briefly, the facts relevant to decide these petitions In 1970 the dealership of retail petroleum outlet M/s Sukhbir Brothers was reconstituted with M.S. Lamba and P.K. Chaudh partners, as Sukhbir was going out of the the name of dealership was changed to M/s one of the partners, M.S. Lamba, died and resigned from the partnership. Accordingly, on 17.06.1976, with the consent of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ( was again reconstituted by inducting Sudesh Lamba (daughter deceased M.S. Lamba), Subhash Chand Go wal/respondent no.1/complainant. The complainant vide letter dated 25.04 BPCL about a dispute between partners of the dealership firm Auto Service which occurred in 1987. He alleged oust him from the firm’s ownership, as also along with connected petitions 2 All these petitions are being decided together as the issue pertains to the criminal complaint case no.445-1, da v. Narinder Singh Lamba and others 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 218 and 506 of IPC, pending Judicial Magistrate, Hansi. For brevity, 1340-2011, which has been filed said criminal complaint, Annexure P-10, as also the order 1, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the aforementioned offences. Briefly, the facts relevant to decide these petitions are: retail petroleum outlet M/s Sukhbir with M.S. Lamba and P.K. Chaudhury as dealership. After the reconstitution, M/s Haryana Auto Service. In 1976, died and the other one, P.K. Chaudhu partnership. Accordingly, on 17.06.1976, with the consent of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, ‘BPCL’), the dealership by inducting Sudesh Lamba (daughter-in-law of deceased M.S. Lamba), Subhash Chand Goyal, and Ram Niwas plainant vide letter dated 25.04.1994 informed the a dispute between partners of the dealership firm M/s Haryana . He alleged threats by other partners to , as also changing the name of partners in All these petitions are being decided together as the issue ated Lamba and others, pending . For brevity, , which has been filed for the order 1, whereby the petitioners have been retail petroleum outlet M/s Sukhbir ry as reconstitution, . In 1976, ury, partnership. Accordingly, on 17.06.1976, with the consent ), the dealership law of , and Ram Niwas .1994 informed the Haryana by other partners to changing the name of partners in MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- the income tax returns without the officials to take action against the other two partners. The BPCL issued a show cause notice, dated 05.05.1997, Annexure P which replies dated 29.05.1997 and 30.05.1997, Annexure P submitted by the complainant and Subhash Chand Go 2.3. dated 05.10.1988, executed amongst the aforesaid three partners (Marketing) of BPCL informed Director (M), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas was difference in the signatures on dissolution deed and dealership agreement, therefore, it would not be possible for the BPCL to re the dealership unles request for response to this letter, a direction was received from t dated 08.02.2001, Annexure P retail outlet dealership till it was proved in dissolution deed was forged or not, been obtained under duress. On BPCL, Hisar, Annexure P of the remaining partners, Subhash Chand Go dealership of M/s partnership of these two in view the dissolution of partnership deed, dated 05.10.1988, whereby the complainant had resigned from partners of Sudesh Lamba from the partnership, the dealership was again -1340-2011 along with connected petitions the income tax returns without obtaining permission from BPCL the officials to take action against the other two partners. The BPCL issued a show cause notice, dated 05.05.1997, Annexure P which replies dated 29.05.1997 and 30.05.1997, Annexure P submitted by the complainant and Subhash Chand Go On coming to know about the dated 05.10.1988, executed amongst the aforesaid three partners (Marketing) of BPCL, Hisar, vide letter dated 18.09.20 informed Director (M), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas was difference in the signatures on dissolution deed and dealership agreement, therefore, it would not be possible for the BPCL to re the dealership unless resignation letter from the complainant, and a formal request for reconstitution from the existing partners were received. In response to this letter, a direction was received from t 8.02.2001, Annexure P-6, not to initiate any action for termination retail outlet dealership till it was proved in dissolution deed was forged or not, and been obtained under duress. On 15.01.200 , Hisar, from the Ministry regarding Annexure P-7. On receipt of the instructions from the Ministry and request of the remaining partners, Subhash Chand Go dealership of M/s Haryana Auto Service was partnership of these two with effect from 05.10.1988. This was done keeping in view the dissolution of partnership deed, dated 05.10.1988, whereby the complainant had resigned from partnership. Later, in view of the resignation of Sudesh Lamba from the partnership, the dealership was again along with connected petitions 3 obtaining permission from BPCL, and asked the officials to take action against the other two partners. The BPCL issued a show cause notice, dated 05.05.1997, Annexure P-2, to all the partners, to which replies dated 29.05.1997 and 30.05.1997, Annexure P-3, were submitted by the complainant and Subhash Chand Goyal. On coming to know about the dissolution of partnership deed, dated 05.10.1988, executed amongst the aforesaid three partners, Director vide letter dated 18.09.2000, Annexure P informed Director (M), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, that there was difference in the signatures on dissolution deed and dealership agreement, therefore, it would not be possible for the BPCL to re-constitute s resignation letter from the complainant, and a formal from the existing partners were received. In response to this letter, a direction was received from the Ministry, vide letter 6, not to initiate any action for termination retail outlet dealership till it was proved in a Court of law as to whether the and whether signatures thereupon had 15.01.2002, another letter was received by from the Ministry regarding reconstitution of the firm, 7. On receipt of the instructions from the Ministry and request of the remaining partners, Subhash Chand Goyal and Sudesh Lamba, the Auto Service was reconstituted under the from 05.10.1988. This was done keeping in view the dissolution of partnership deed, dated 05.10.1988, whereby the hip. Later, in view of the resignation of Sudesh Lamba from the partnership, the dealership was again and asked the officials to take action against the other two partners. The BPCL issued a 2, to all the partners, to were dissolution of partnership deed, Director 00, Annexure P-5, that there was difference in the signatures on dissolution deed and dealership constitute s resignation letter from the complainant, and a formal from the existing partners were received. In he Ministry, vide letter 6, not to initiate any action for termination of whether the whether signatures thereupon had , another letter was received by of the firm, 7. On receipt of the instructions from the Ministry and request l and Sudesh Lamba, the under the from 05.10.1988. This was done keeping in view the dissolution of partnership deed, dated 05.10.1988, whereby the hip. Later, in view of the resignation of Sudesh Lamba from the partnership, the dealership was again MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- reconstituted with effect from 2.4. police, dated 20.12.2005, Annexure P from the petrol pump that he met Territorial Manager (TM) of the BPC no.3 in CRM misbehaved and asked him to resign from dealership. It was also alleged the TM conspired with vide letter date as he knew by that time the 2.5. inquiry report, dated 27.01.2006, Annexure P Superintendent of Police, Hisar, concluding that no offence was made out as per the allegations levelled. The report concluded as under: 2.6. criminal registration of FIR against Subhash Chand Go -1340-2011 along with connected petitions reconstituted in the name of Subhash Chand Goya with effect from 04.03.2005, Annexure P- The complainant, thereupon, police, dated 20.12.2005, Annexure P-9, alleging that he was for from the petrol pump by other partners in 1987. It was also stated therein that he met Territorial Manager (TM) of the BPC in CRM-M-2166-2011, and requested him to take action but he misbehaved and asked him to resign from dealership. It was also alleged the TM conspired with Subhash Chand Go vide letter dated 27.12.2000 gave him one month as he knew by that time the then GM would leave the BPCL. The complaint was thoroughly investigated by the police and inquiry report, dated 27.01.2006, Annexure P Superintendent of Police, Hisar, concluding that no offence was made out as per the allegations levelled. The report concluded as under: From the above enquiry, no element of cheating has been found to attract a police case. There is some internal dispu give and take between the parties. The complainant can raise his issue relating to partnership before Civil Court, Consumer Court or before Bharat Petroleum Corporation. No offence is found to have been committed nor any likelihood of breach of peace is there. Report is submitted. The complainant had requested before Director General Police, Haryana that he should not be called for his statement again. Copy of which is enclosed. Thereupon, the complainant approached this Court by filing writ petition, CRM-M-32255 registration of FIR against Subhash Chand Go along with connected petitions 4 n the name of Subhash Chand Goyal as the sole proprietor -8. thereupon, filed a complaint before the 9, alleging that he was forcibly ousted by other partners in 1987. It was also stated therein that he met Territorial Manager (TM) of the BPCL, R.K. Singhal/petitioner , and requested him to take action but he misbehaved and asked him to resign from dealership. It was also alleged that Subhash Chand Goyal against the complainant, and one month’s extra time for filing reply GM would leave the BPCL. The complaint was thoroughly investigated by the police and inquiry report, dated 27.01.2006, Annexure P-4, was submitted by Depu Superintendent of Police, Hisar, concluding that no offence was made out as per the allegations levelled. The report concluded as under: From the above enquiry, no element of cheating has been found to attract a police case. There is some internal dispute of give and take between the parties. The complainant can raise his issue relating to partnership before Civil Court, Consumer Court or before Bharat Petroleum Corporation. No offence is found to have been committed nor any likelihood of breach of is there. Report is submitted. The complainant had requested before Director General Police, Haryana that he should not be called for his statement again. Copy of which is Thereupon, the complainant approached this Court by filing 32255-2007, seeking a direction for registration of FIR against Subhash Chand Goyal, Narinder Singh Lamba, l as the sole proprietor filed a complaint before the cibly ousted by other partners in 1987. It was also stated therein R.K. Singhal/petitioner , and requested him to take action but he that l against the complainant, and extra time for filing reply The complaint was thoroughly investigated by the police and 4, was submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar, concluding that no offence was made out as From the above enquiry, no element of cheating has been te of give and take between the parties. The complainant can raise his issue relating to partnership before Civil Court, Consumer Court or before Bharat Petroleum Corporation. No offence is found to have been committed nor any likelihood of breach of is there. Report is submitted. The complainant had requested before Director General Police, Haryana that he should not be called for his statement again. Copy of which is Thereupon, the complainant approached this Court by filing , seeking a direction for Singh Lamba, MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- and the petitioners/officials of the BPCL 20.12.2005, filed by him to the police upon which n have been made out and disposed of the petition vide order dated 21.05.2007, granting liberty to the complainant to approach the concerned Magistrate for the purpose. 2.7. Section 156 FIR. For the first time, the BPCL officials/petitioners impleaded as accused. The registration of the FIR. T Narinder Singh blank papers at gun point and threatened office of the dissolution deed by forging the signatures of as also by showing his signatures taken at gun point on the deed. further alleged that on the basis of forged Singhal allowed partners to run complainant examined himself as PW Devendra by N.S. Lamba and Subhash Chand Go 2.8. dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.08.2009, Annexure holding that it was nothing but to settle personal scores with the alleged accused. It was also observed that -1340-2011 along with connected petitions and the petitioners/officials of the BPCL 20.12.2005, filed by him to the police upon which n have been made out against them. This Court declined to issue a direction, and disposed of the petition vide order dated 21.05.2007, granting liberty to the complainant to approach the concerned Magistrate for the purpose. Thereafter the complainant filed a criminal complaint under 56(3) of Cr.P.C. before SDJM, dated 24.12.2007, for registration of For the first time, the BPCL officials/petitioners impleaded as accused. The Magistrate declined to registration of the FIR. The complainant alleged that on 08.04.1987, Singh Lamba and Subhash Chand Go blank papers at gun point and threatened office of the petrol pump. It was also alleged that dissolution deed by forging the signatures of as also by showing his signatures taken at gun point on the deed. further alleged that on the basis of forged allowed reconstitution of the dealership firm and permitted the partners to run the petrol pump. To substantiate the allegation nant examined himself as PW-1, and F Devendra Prasad as PW-2 to prove the alleged forgery of dissolution deed by N.S. Lamba and Subhash Chand Goya After examining the pre-summoning evidence, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.08.2009, Annexure holding that it was nothing but a pressure to settle personal scores with the alleged accused. It was also observed that along with connected petitions 5 and the petitioners/officials of the BPCL, on the basis of complaint dated 20.12.2005, filed by him to the police upon which no offence was found to . This Court declined to issue a direction, and disposed of the petition vide order dated 21.05.2007, granting liberty to the complainant to approach the concerned Magistrate for the purpose. the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Cr.P.C. before SDJM, dated 24.12.2007, for registration of For the first time, the BPCL officials/petitioners herein were also Magistrate declined to issue a direction for he complainant alleged that on 08.04.1987, Lamba and Subhash Chand Goyal obtained his signatures on blank papers at gun point and threatened to kill him in case he entered the . It was also alleged that both of them prepared the dissolution deed by forging the signatures of another partner/Sudesh Lamba as also by showing his signatures taken at gun point on the deed. It was further alleged that on the basis of forged dissolution deed, the TM/R.K. of the dealership firm and permitted the . To substantiate the allegations, the 1, and Forensic Document Expert 2 to prove the alleged forgery of dissolution deed yal. summoning evidence, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.08.2009, Annexure P- a pressure tactic adopted by the complainant to settle personal scores with the alleged accused. It was also observed that on the basis of complaint dated o offence was found to . This Court declined to issue a direction, and disposed of the petition vide order dated 21.05.2007, granting liberty to the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Cr.P.C. before SDJM, dated 24.12.2007, for registration of herein were also issue a direction for he complainant alleged that on 08.04.1987, l obtained his signatures on to kill him in case he entered the prepared the Sudesh Lamba, It was R.K. of the dealership firm and permitted the , the Document Expert 2 to prove the alleged forgery of dissolution deed the Magistrate -12, tactic adopted by the complainant to settle personal scores with the alleged accused. It was also observed that MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- the dispute was of civil nature, and no fraud, etc., had been committed on the complainant. 2.9. complainant filing a c allowed vide order dated 06.05.2010 dated 17.08.2009 reconsideration as investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had not been carried out properly by the police. The relevant reads as under: 2.10. was placed on record handwriting and finger print -1340-2011 along with connected petitions dispute was of civil nature, and no fraud, etc., had been committed on the complainant. Aggrieved against the said order dated 17.08.2009, the complainant approached the Court of Additional Ses criminal revision petition no.49 of 2009 on 16.11.2009. It was allowed vide order dated 06.05.2010 by setting aside the Magistrate’s order dated 17.08.2009, and remanding the complaint to the reconsideration as investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had not been carried out properly by the police. The relevant as under: 3. After going through the lower Court record this Court concurs with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant because from the correspondence of the Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. i seen the original of the dissolution deed till date. Even the police in its report under Section 202 Cr.P.C has nowhere recorded that original of the dissolution deed Ex.P seen by it during the course of invest part of the police to bring on record the original of dissolution deed Ex. P-24 shows that the investigation under Section 202 was not carried out properly by the police impugned order is hereby set aside. The remanded back to the trial Court. The learned trial Court should reconsider its order dated 17.8.2009, after directing the po under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. to place on record the original of dissolution deed Ex. P-24 or any other co police. The complainant is directed to Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 20.5.2010. Pursuant thereto, the original dissolution deed dated 05.10.1988 was placed on record before the Magistrate handwriting and finger print expert who opined that complainant’s along with connected petitions 6 dispute was of civil nature, and no fraud, etc., had been committed on the Aggrieved against the said order dated 17.08.2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, by riminal revision petition no.49 of 2009 on 16.11.2009. It was by setting aside the Magistrate’s order remanding the complaint to the Magistrate for reconsideration as investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had not been carried out properly by the police. The relevant paragraph of the judgment After going through the lower Court record this Court the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant because from the correspondence of the M/s Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. it can be gathered that it has not seen the original of the dissolution deed till date. Even the police in its report under Section 202 Cr.P.C has nowhere recorded that original of the dissolution deed Ex.P-24 was ever by it during the course of investigation. The failure on part of the police to bring on record the original of dissolution 24 shows that the investigation under Section 202 was not carried out properly by the police. Consequently the impugned order is hereby set aside. The complaint in hand is remanded back to the trial Court. The learned trial Court should reconsider its order dated 17.8.2009, after directing the police C. to place on record the original of 24 or any other contrary report of the police. The complainant is directed to appear before the trial qa Magistrate on 20.5.2010. original dissolution deed dated 05.10.1988 before the Magistrate, and the complainant examined expert who opined that complainant’s dispute was of civil nature, and no fraud, etc., had been committed on the Aggrieved against the said order dated 17.08.2009, the sions Judge, Hisar, by riminal revision petition no.49 of 2009 on 16.11.2009. It was by setting aside the Magistrate’s order Magistrate for reconsideration as investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had not been of the judgment After going through the lower Court record this Court the argument advanced by the learned counsel for M/s t can be gathered that it has not seen the original of the dissolution deed till date. Even the police in its report under Section 202 Cr.P.C has nowhere 24 was ever the part of the police to bring on record the original of dissolution 24 shows that the investigation under Section 202 Consequently the complaint in hand is remanded back to the trial Court. The learned trial Court should lice C. to place on record the original of ntrary report of the appear before the trial original dissolution deed dated 05.10.1988 complainant examined expert who opined that complainant’s MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- signatures had been forged. The Magistrate, thereafter, before proceeding against the accused, directed investigation by the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and 23.05.2009. Accordingly, the police submitted its report before the Magistrate on 14.07.2009, Annexure P made out against any of the accused as it was a civil di the police recorded statements of Sudesh Lamba who stated, she was present in the meeting on 31.03.1988, and that she had herself signed the di deed dated 05.10.1988. She Lamba ha objection raised by the complainant. inquiry report -1340-2011 along with connected petitions signatures had been forged. The Magistrate, thereafter, before proceeding against the accused, directed investigation by the police under Section 202 and SHO, Hansi, was directed to submit his report 23.05.2009. Accordingly, the police submitted its report before the Magistrate on 14.07.2009, Annexure P-16, again finding that no offence was made out against any of the accused as it was a civil di the police recorded statements of Sudesh Lamba who stated, she was present in the meeting on 31.03.1988, and that she had herself signed the di deed dated 05.10.1988. She also stated that uncle of her husband had also put his signatures, which were crossed on account of objection raised by the complainant. The relevant extract of the police report is as under: During investigation I, ASI recorded statements of partners of M/s Haryana Auto Service DHS Sudesh Lamba w/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Lamba r/o H.No.217, Jor Bag, Delhi Road, Delhi who in her statement has got that on 1.7.76 she became partner of Haryana Auto Service, Hansi. Besides her Sh Subhash Goyal and Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal also became partners. Prior to this Sh Subhash Goyal, ShMaha Singh Lamba and Sh Pardeep Chaudhary were partners. On 31.3.1988 Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal also took away his share from Haryana Auto Service, Hansi and on that date she was also present in the mee Dissolution Deed dated 5.10.1988 was written on which I also put my signatures alongwith Subhash Goyal and Ram Nivas Aggarwal. As witness Uncle of my husband Sh Lamba also put his signatures but because of objection bei made by Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal, his signatures were crossed and subsequently signatures were put by Sh Advocate, as witness. We three had put signatures together at the petrol pump. The version of Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal that along with connected petitions 7 signatures had been forged. The Magistrate, thereafter, before proceeding against the accused, directed investigation by the police under Section 202 was directed to submit his report, vide order dated 23.05.2009. Accordingly, the police submitted its report before the 16, again finding that no offence was made out against any of the accused as it was a civil dispute. Among others, the police recorded statements of Sudesh Lamba who stated, she was present in the meeting on 31.03.1988, and that she had herself signed the dissolution also stated that uncle of her husband/Narinder , which were crossed on account of The relevant extract of the police During investigation I, ASI recorded statements of partners of M/s Haryana Auto Service DHS Hansi namely Smt. Sudesh Lamba w/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Lamba r/o H.No.217, Jor Bag, Delhi Road, Delhi who in her statement has got recorded that on 1.7.76 she became partner of Haryana Auto Service, Hansi. Besides her Sh Subhash Goyal and Sh Ram Nivas l also became partners. Prior to this Sh Subhash Goyal, ShMaha Singh Lamba and Sh Pardeep Chaudhary were partners. On 31.3.1988 Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal also took away his share from Haryana Auto Service, Hansi and on that date she was also present in the meeting. In the said meeting a Dissolution Deed dated 5.10.1988 was written on which I also put my signatures alongwith Subhash Goyal and Ram Nivas Aggarwal. As witness Uncle of my husband Sh Narinder Lamba also put his signatures but because of objection bei made by Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal, his signatures were crossed and subsequently signatures were put by Sh S.K.Binder, Advocate, as witness. We three had put signatures together at the petrol pump. The version of Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal that signatures had been forged. The Magistrate, thereafter, before proceeding against the accused, directed investigation by the police under Section 202 vide order dated 23.05.2009. Accordingly, the police submitted its report before the 16, again finding that no offence was spute. Among others, the police recorded statements of Sudesh Lamba who stated, she was present ssolution Narinder , which were crossed on account of The relevant extract of the police During investigation I, ASI recorded statements of Hansi namely Smt. Sudesh Lamba w/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Lamba r/o H.No.217, Jor recorded that on 1.7.76 she became partner of Haryana Auto Service, Hansi. Besides her Sh Subhash Goyal and Sh Ram Nivas l also became partners. Prior to this Sh Subhash Goyal, ShMaha Singh Lamba and Sh Pardeep Chaudhary were partners. On 31.3.1988 Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal also took away his share from Haryana Auto Service, Hansi and on that date ting. In the said meeting a Dissolution Deed dated 5.10.1988 was written on which I also put my signatures alongwith Subhash Goyal and Ram Nivas Narinder Lamba also put his signatures but because of objection being made by Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal, his signatures were crossed S.K.Binder, Advocate, as witness. We three had put signatures together at the petrol pump. The version of Sh Ram Nivas Aggarwal that MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- -1340-2011 along with connected petitions Sh Subhash Goyal and Sh signatures on blank papers by showing pistol is false signatures been obtained by threat, he would not have put his signatures subsequently on the income tax return for the assessment year 1989-90 which also bear Goyal's signatures. The allegation that upon dissolution dated 5.10.88 my signatures are forged is also false because I had put my signatures in the presence of all and to prove this I have got my signatures verified from the Expert, repor produced. Because of my house out my share from Haryana Auto Service, Hansi on 4.3.2005 regarding which I had given a written letter to the Company on 24.12.04 and the complaint is being made by Ram Nivas Aggarwal out of greed. In this regard, Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Rewari has given a written statement that on the basis of Dissolution Deed dated 5.10.1988 in terms of orders of General Manager Office dated 15.1.2002 and further or dated 27.2.2002 upon receipt of orders of dissolution the shares were separated. And writing dated 8 Aggarwal are not in the office and photocopy of which is dated 20.1.1986 which has been written by him to GM Retail, Noida and prior to this copy of said letter was also not in the office of company at Rewari. The allegation is that on 8.11.1987 Sh Subhash Goyal and Sh Narinder Lamba obtained his signatures on blank papers by showing pistol and dissolution deed was prepared to oust him from Haryana Auto Service. Upon investigation it has been found that this stamp paper dated 5.10.1988 has been purchased from Sh S.N.Chhabra, Stamp Vendor, Hissar on the name of Haryana Auto Service entry regarding which is available in the register of Sh S.N.Chhabra, Stamp Vendor at serial no.8723 and further entry regarding calculations is available on the stamp paper whereas in the Ex.P24 attached with the complaint there is no writing. Regarding this statement of Sh along with connected petitions 8 nd Sh Narinder Lamba obtained his signatures on blank papers by showing pistol is false. Had his signatures been obtained by threat, he would not have put his signatures subsequently on the income tax return for the 90 which also bear mine and Subhash Goyal's signatures. The allegation that upon dissolution dated 5.10.88 my signatures are forged is also false because I had put my signatures in the presence of all and to prove this I have got my signatures verified from the Expert, report of which is being produced. Because of my house-hold obligations I had taken out my share from Haryana Auto Service, Hansi on 4.3.2005 regarding which I had given a written letter to the Company on 24.12.04 and the complaint is being made by Ram Nivas In this regard, Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Ltd. Rewari has given a written statement that on the basis of Dissolution Deed dated 5.10.1988 in terms of orders of General Manager Office dated 15.1.2002 and further orders dated 27.2.2002 upon receipt of orders of dissolution the shares were separated. And writing dated 8.4.1987 of Ram Nivas Aggarwal are not in the office and photocopy of which is dated 20.1.1986 which has been written by him to GM Retail, Noida or to this copy of said letter was also not in the office of The allegation is that on 8.11.1987 Sh Subhash Goyal Lamba obtained his signatures on blank papers by showing pistol and dissolution deed was prepared to oust im from Haryana Auto Service. Upon investigation it has been found that this stamp paper dated 5.10.1988 has been purchased S.N.Chhabra, Stamp Vendor, Hissar on the name of Haryana Auto Service entry regarding which is available in the S.N.Chhabra, Stamp Vendor at serial no.8723 and further entry regarding calculations is available on the stamp paper whereas in the Ex.P24 attached with the complaint there is no writing. Regarding this statement of Sh S.N.Chhabra has Lamba obtained his Had his signatures been obtained by threat, he would not have put his signatures subsequently on the income tax return for the mine and Subhash Goyal's signatures. The allegation that upon dissolution dated 5.10.88 my signatures are forged is also false because I had put my signatures in the presence of all and to prove this I have got t of which is being hold obligations I had taken out my share from Haryana Auto Service, Hansi on 4.3.2005 regarding which I had given a written letter to the Company on 24.12.04 and the complaint is being made by Ram Nivas In this regard, Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Ltd. Rewari has given a written statement that on the basis of Dissolution Deed dated 5.10.1988 in terms of orders of ders dated 27.2.2002 upon receipt of orders of dissolution the shares 4.1987 of Ram Nivas Aggarwal are not in the office and photocopy of which is dated 20.1.1986 which has been written by him to GM Retail, Noida or to this copy of said letter was also not in the office of The allegation is that on 8.11.1987 Sh Subhash Goyal Lamba obtained his signatures on blank papers by showing pistol and dissolution deed was prepared to oust im from Haryana Auto Service. Upon investigation it has been found that this stamp paper dated 5.10.1988 has been purchased S.N.Chhabra, Stamp Vendor, Hissar on the name of Haryana Auto Service entry regarding which is available in the S.N.Chhabra, Stamp Vendor at serial no.8723 and further entry regarding calculations is available on the stamp paper whereas in the Ex.P24 attached with the complaint there S.N.Chhabra has MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 2.11. and, vide impugned order well as Subhash Chand Go trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 Magistrate is as under: -1340-2011 along with connected petitions been recorded who has admitted that this stamp paper was purchased from him on 5.10.1988 which bears his signatures. In the investigation done by me it has been found that Dissolution deed dated 5.10.88 in respect of Haryana Auto Service was prepared after purchasing stamp S.N.Chhabra upon which all the partners put their signatures and signatures of Sudesh Lamba were examined by Expert and letter dated 8.4.87 which has been written by Ram Nivas Aggarwal to SSO BPL Bharat Petroleum Hissar, was received alongwith letter dated 18.1.2006 from GM Retail, Bharat Petroleum, Noida written to Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum, Rewari whereas all the files of Haryana Auto Service are available in the office of Territory Manager, Rewari. In the investigation of I ASI it Nivas Aggarwal made no complaint between 1988 to 1994 nor did he make any complaint regarding incident dated 8.4.1987. Hence, no truth is found in the allegations made by the complainant. The Magistrate, however, did not vide impugned order dated 02.11.2010, summoned the petitioners as Subhash Chand Goyal and Narinder Singh trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The relevant extract of impugned Magistrate is as under: ...In the present case, the complainant has adduced overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence which prima facie leads to the conclusion that the accused Subhas Chand Goyal and Narinder signatures of the complainant on the dissolution deed and the remaining accused were also in connivance with them and they had not taken appropriate action against these two accused persons and had also not stopped the supply of petrol and diesel to the said Petrol Pump despite the fact that they were well along with connected petitions 9 has admitted that this stamp paper was purchased from him on 5.10.1988 which bears his signatures. In the investigation done by me it has been found that Dissolution deed dated 5.10.88 in respect of Haryana Auto Service was prepared after purchasing stamp paper from Sh S.N.Chhabra upon which all the partners put their signatures and signatures of Sudesh Lamba were examined by Expert and letter dated 8.4.87 which has been written by Ram Nivas Aggarwal to SSO BPL Bharat Petroleum Hissar, was received h letter dated 18.1.2006 from GM Retail, Bharat Petroleum, Noida written to Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum, Rewari whereas all the files of Haryana Auto Service are available in the office of Territory Manager, Rewari. In the investigation of I ASI it has been found that Sh. Ram Nivas Aggarwal made no complaint between 1988 to 1994 nor did he make any complaint regarding incident dated 8.4.1987. Hence, no truth is found in the allegations made by the The Magistrate, however, did not agree with the enquiry report dated 02.11.2010, summoned the petitioners as Narinder Singh Lamba as accused to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 218 of IPC. The relevant extract of impugned order passed by the In the present case, the complainant has adduced overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence which prima facie leads to the conclusion that the accused Subhas Narinder Lamba have fabricated the signatures of the complainant on the dissolution deed and the remaining accused were also in connivance with them and they had not taken appropriate action against these two accused not stopped the supply of petrol and diesel to the said Petrol Pump despite the fact that they were well has admitted that this stamp paper was purchased from him on 5.10.1988 which bears his signatures. In the investigation done by me it has been found that Dissolution deed dated 5.10.88 in respect of Haryana Auto paper from Sh S.N.Chhabra upon which all the partners put their signatures and signatures of Sudesh Lamba were examined by Expert and letter dated 8.4.87 which has been written by Ram Nivas Aggarwal to SSO BPL Bharat Petroleum Hissar, was received h letter dated 18.1.2006 from GM Retail, Bharat Petroleum, Noida written to Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum, Rewari whereas all the files of Haryana Auto Service are available in the office of Territory Manager, Rewari. has been found that Sh. has been found that Sh. Ram Nivas Aggarwal made no complaint between 1988 to 1994 nor did he make any complaint regarding incident dated 8.4.1987. Hence, no truth is found in the allegations made by the report dated 02.11.2010, summoned the petitioners as to face , 218 by the In the present case, the complainant has adduced overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence which prima facie leads to the conclusion that the accused Subhash Lamba have fabricated the signatures of the complainant on the dissolution deed and the remaining accused were also in connivance with them and they had not taken appropriate action against these two accused not stopped the supply of petrol and diesel to the said Petrol Pump despite the fact that they were well MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 2.12. Goyal challenged the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, dated 02.11.2010, by filing criminal revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, which dated 31.05.2012, and the Magistrate’s order aside qua consider the ev law. The relevant -1340-2011 along with connected petitions aware of the terms and conditions of the memorandum which had been submitted by them in the company and the complainant has placed on the file numerous been sent by him to the officials of the company as well wherein all the allegations have been reiterated but no action was taken against the culprits and as such prima facie sufficient evidence is available on the file which warrants th accused persons should be summoned to face trial for commission of offences punishable under sections 420/467/468/471/120B/218/506 IPC and as such the accused persons are summoned accordingly for 7.12.2010 on compliance of section 204 Cr.P.C on witnesses etc. and copies of complain Two of the accused/Narinder challenged the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, dated 02.11.2010, by filing criminal revision petition dditional Sessions Judge, Hisar, which dated 31.05.2012, and the Magistrate’s order qua the revisionists. The case was remanded to the trial Court to the evidence afresh and deal with the complaint in accordance with . The relevant paragraphs of the judgment 20. Learned trial court in the present case was required to give some reasons or at least make a short reference as to why he did not consider the reports of the police given under section 202 Cr.P.C. and what evidence weighed more in his mind while making out a prima facie case. required to be made as admittedly contrary evidence was also present on record. Complete absence on his part thus, has vitiate the order whereby reflected a jurisdictional error. In this regard reference can be made to Punjab National Bank's case (supra) and Anil Kumar Sah's case (supra) Punjab National Bank's case (supra). In the said authorities, report under section along with connected petitions 10 aware of the terms and conditions of the memorandum which had been submitted by them in the company and the complainant has placed on the file numerous letters which had been sent by him to the officials of the company as well wherein all the allegations have been reiterated but no action was taken against the culprits and as such prima facie sufficient evidence is available on the file which warrants that all the accused persons should be summoned to face trial for commission of offences punishable under sections 420/467/468/471/120B/218/506 IPC and as such the accused persons are summoned accordingly for 7.12.2010 on compliance of section 204 Cr.P.C on filing of PF and list of witnesses etc. and copies of complaint. Narinder Singh Lamba and Subhash Chand challenged the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, dated 02.11.2010, by filing criminal revision petition no.4 dated 14.01.2011, dditional Sessions Judge, Hisar, which was accepted vide judgment dated 31.05.2012, and the Magistrate’s order, dated 02.11.2010, was set case was remanded to the trial Court to and deal with the complaint in accordance with of the judgment read as under: Learned trial court in the present case was required to some reasons or at least make a short reference as to why he did not consider the reports of the police given under section 202 Cr.P.C. and what evidence weighed more in his mind while making out a prima facie case. In case, a judicial analysis was d to be made as admittedly contrary evidence was also present on record. Complete absence on his part thus, has vitiate the order whereby reflected a jurisdictional error. In this regard reference can be made to Punjab National Bank's case Kumar Sah's case (supra) Punjab National Bank's case (supra). In the said authorities, report under section aware of the terms and conditions of the memorandum which had been submitted by them in the company and the letters which had been sent by him to the officials of the company as well wherein all the allegations have been reiterated but no action was taken against the culprits and as such prima facie sufficient at all the accused persons should be summoned to face trial for commission of offences punishable under sections 420/467/468/471/120B/218/506 IPC and as such the accused persons are summoned accordingly for 7.12.2010 on filing of PF and list of Singh Lamba and Subhash Chand challenged the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, dated no.4 dated 14.01.2011, was accepted vide judgment was set case was remanded to the trial Court to and deal with the complaint in accordance with Learned trial court in the present case was required to some reasons or at least make a short reference as to why he did not consider the reports of the police given under section 202 Cr.P.C. and what evidence weighed more in his mind while n case, a judicial analysis was d to be made as admittedly contrary evidence was also present on record. Complete absence on his part thus, has vitiate the order whereby reflected a jurisdictional error. In this regard reference can be made to Punjab National Bank's case Kumar Sah's case (supra) Punjab National Bank's case (supra). In the said authorities, report under section MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 2.13. complainant remaining two petitions have been -1340-2011 along with connected petitions 202 Cr.P.C. prepared by police indicated a false case. Learned Magistrate without considering the facts in the said report set them aside. It was held that it amounts to abuse of process of court. Similarly our own High Court in Kuldip Raj Mahajan's case (supra) observed that without considering the investigation report/cancellation report of the police, the impugned summoning order could not have be Magistrate. 21. The remand order dated 06.5.2010 as passed by Sh. Sudhir Jiwan, learned Revisionist Court had directed the trial court to reconsider the order dated 17.8.2009 after directing the police under section 202 Cr.P.C. of dissolution deed Ex.P24 or any contrary report of the police. In the impugned order learned Magistrate has not given any observation for ignoring the reports or which piece of evidence preferred and why, while considerin noted above, he did not make any reference of the report sent by the police under section 202 Cr.P.C. and completely ignored the directions given by the learned Revisionist Court. 22. Per discussions, learned trial court committed jurisdictional error in not considering the entire matter, particularly reports under section 202 Cr.P.C. and travelled beyond the order of Revisionist Court by permitting the complainant to lead evidence of an Expert and considered the same while passing the impugned order. 23. As result, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside qua the revisionists. Revision is accordingly accepted and the case is remanded back to learned trial court to consider afresh the evidence in observations made above and deal with the complaint in accordance with law. This judgment has been challenged before this Court by the complainant in the connected petition ining two petitions have been along with connected petitions 11 202 Cr.P.C. prepared by police indicated a false case. Learned Magistrate without considering the facts in the said report set eld that it amounts to abuse of process of court. Similarly our own High Court in Kuldip Raj Mahajan's case (supra) observed that without considering the investigation report/cancellation report of the police, the impugned summoning order could not have been legally passed by learned The remand order dated 06.5.2010 as passed by Sh. Sudhir Jiwan, learned Revisionist Court had directed the trial court to reconsider the order dated 17.8.2009 after directing the police under section 202 Cr.P.C. to place on record the original of dissolution deed Ex.P24 or any contrary report of the police. In the impugned order learned Magistrate has not given any observation for ignoring the reports or which piece of evidence preferred and why, while considering a prima facie case. As noted above, he did not make any reference of the report sent by the police under section 202 Cr.P.C. and completely ignored the directions given by the learned Revisionist Court. Per discussions, learned trial court committed jurisdictional error in not considering the entire matter, particularly reports under section 202 Cr.P.C. and travelled beyond the order of Revisionist Court by permitting the complainant to lead evidence of an Expert and considered the the impugned order. As result, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside qua the revisionists. Revision is accordingly accepted and the case is remanded back to learned trial court to consider afresh the evidence in the light of observations made above and deal with the complaint in This judgment has been challenged before this Court by the in the connected petition, CRM-M-22825-2012. And the ining two petitions have been filed by the company officials 202 Cr.P.C. prepared by police indicated a false case. Learned Magistrate without considering the facts in the said report set eld that it amounts to abuse of process of court. Similarly our own High Court in Kuldip Raj Mahajan's case (supra) observed that without considering the investigation report/cancellation report of the police, the impugned en legally passed by learned The remand order dated 06.5.2010 as passed by Sh. Sudhir Jiwan, learned Revisionist Court had directed the trial court to reconsider the order dated 17.8.2009 after directing the to place on record the original of dissolution deed Ex.P24 or any contrary report of the police. In the impugned order learned Magistrate has not given any observation for ignoring the reports or which piece of evidence g a prima facie case. As noted above, he did not make any reference of the report sent by the police under section 202 Cr.P.C. and completely ignored Per discussions, learned trial court committed jurisdictional error in not considering the entire matter, particularly reports under section 202 Cr.P.C. and travelled beyond the order of Revisionist Court by permitting the complainant to lead evidence of an Expert and considered the As result, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside qua the revisionists. Revision is accordingly accepted and the case is remanded back to learned the light of observations made above and deal with the complaint in This judgment has been challenged before this Court by the And the company officials MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- challenging the summoning order not challenge it before the Sessions Court. 3. have contended that the impugned order p erroneous petitioners case. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, ingredients of none of the alleged offences are even petitioners. Besides, duties in a officers, and none of the officials of by the complainant to the police on 20.12.2005 be permitted to implicate the later before the Magistrate on 24.12.2007. law. Thirdly 1988, but the complaint fraud. This been levelled only to settle personal scores. it is a civil dispute between complainant has not initiated any civil proceedings in the matter cannot be permitted to initiate criminal action regarding the dispute. it has been contended that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 06.05.2010, accepting the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant and remanding the complaint to the Magistrate is jurisdiction, as the petitio before passing the order of remand. This is in violation of the settled law in -1340-2011 along with connected petitions challenging the summoning order, dated not challenge it before the Sessions Court. In this factual background, lea have contended that the impugned order p erroneous as it ignores the settled proposition of law and petitioners despite there being no material Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, ingredients of none of the alleged offences are even petitioners. Besides, they are officials of duties in a bona fide manner in line with directions issued by the , and are not beneficiaries of the transaction none of the officials of the BPCL were named in the initial complaint filed by the complainant to the police on 20.12.2005 be permitted to implicate them in the impugned complaint filed two years later before the Magistrate on 24.12.2007. Thirdly, it has been contended that the dissolution deed was executed in t the complaint was filed only on 20.12.2005, alleging forgery and fraud. This inordinate delay itself shows falsity of the allegations been levelled only to settle personal scores. it is a civil dispute between the partners of the dealership, but the complainant has not initiated any civil proceedings in the matter cannot be permitted to initiate criminal action regarding the dispute. it has been contended that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 06.05.2010, accepting the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant and remanding the complaint to the Magistrate is jurisdiction, as the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the order of remand. This is in violation of the settled law in along with connected petitions 12 02.11.2010, qua them as they not challenge it before the Sessions Court. In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is the settled proposition of law and summons the material on record implicating them in the Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, ingredients of none of the alleged offences are even prima facie made out against the are officials of the BPCL, who discharged their line with directions issued by the superior of the transaction in any manner. Secondly named in the initial complaint filed by the complainant to the police on 20.12.2005, and the complainant cannot in the impugned complaint filed two years later before the Magistrate on 24.12.2007. This is an abuse of the process of the dissolution deed was executed in only on 20.12.2005, alleging forgery and shows falsity of the allegations which have been levelled only to settle personal scores. Fourthly, the allegations depict the partners of the dealership, but the complainant has not initiated any civil proceedings in the matter and he cannot be permitted to initiate criminal action regarding the dispute. Lastly it has been contended that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 06.05.2010, accepting the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant and remanding the complaint to the Magistrate is itself without ners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the order of remand. This is in violation of the settled law in them as they did ned counsel for the petitioners assed by the Magistrate is summons the m in the Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, ingredients made out against the BPCL, who discharged their superior Secondly, named in the initial complaint filed cannot in the impugned complaint filed two years This is an abuse of the process of the dissolution deed was executed in only on 20.12.2005, alleging forgery and which have depict the partners of the dealership, but the nd he Lastly, it has been contended that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 06.05.2010, accepting the criminal revision petition filed by the without ners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the order of remand. This is in violation of the settled law in MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- Manharibhai Patel and others 4. summoning order the petitioners on record. as Sudesh conspired fraud were complainant the criminal intent dissolution deed dated 14.07.2009, and only thereafter the compla against the petitioners. 5. considered. 6. M/s Haryana Auto Service was As per dissolution deed of the same date, the complainant had resigned from partnership. Later, out of the two partners, Subhash Chand Goyal and Sudesh Lamba, the latter also resigned; in the sole proprietorship of the former with effect from 04.03.2005. complainant filed the complaint with the police, dated 20.12.2005, alleging forcible ouster from the dealership firm part of the BPCL officials. report dated 27.01.2006 allegations levelled -1340-2011 along with connected petitions Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another Patel and others, 2012 (10) SCC 517. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant summoning order was rightly passed as there was sufficient evidence against titioners on record. They forged sig h Lamba in connivance with th d to throw him out of the deale were clearly made out against them complainant were obtained on blank papers at gun point criminal intent. There was no delay in filing complaint since the dissolution deed was obtained from the police dated 14.07.2009, and only thereafter the compla against the petitioners. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. As per facts apparent on record, the petrol pump dealership of M/s Haryana Auto Service was reconstituted As per dissolution deed of the same date, the complainant had resigned from partnership. Later, out of the two partners, Subhash Chand Goyal and Sudesh Lamba, the latter also resigned; and the dealership was he sole proprietorship of the former with effect from 04.03.2005. complainant filed the complaint with the police, dated 20.12.2005, alleging forcible ouster from the dealership firm by other partners part of the BPCL officials. After enquiring report dated 27.01.2006, concluded that no offence was made out as per the allegations levelled and it was essentially a civil dispute between the along with connected petitions 13 Kakadia and another v. Shailesh bhai Mohanbhai ned counsel for the complainant submitted that rightly passed as there was sufficient evidence against gnatures of the complainant as w he co-accused, threatened him a ership. Accordingly, ingredients of made out against them. Besides, signatures of the ed on blank papers at gun point which established here was no delay in filing complaint since the the police only after the police report dated 14.07.2009, and only thereafter the complaint could have been filed Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been As per facts apparent on record, the petrol pump dealership of reconstituted with effect from 05.10.1988. As per dissolution deed of the same date, the complainant had resigned from partnership. Later, out of the two partners, Subhash Chand Goyal and and the dealership was reconstituted he sole proprietorship of the former with effect from 04.03.2005. The complainant filed the complaint with the police, dated 20.12.2005, alleging by other partners and inaction on the enquiring the complaint, the police, vide no offence was made out as per the it was essentially a civil dispute between the Mohanbhai submitted that rightly passed as there was sufficient evidence against well and ngredients of signatures of the blished here was no delay in filing complaint since the after the police report, int could have been filed Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been As per facts apparent on record, the petrol pump dealership of with effect from 05.10.1988. As per dissolution deed of the same date, the complainant had resigned from partnership. Later, out of the two partners, Subhash Chand Goyal and reconstituted The complainant filed the complaint with the police, dated 20.12.2005, alleging and inaction on the , vide no offence was made out as per the it was essentially a civil dispute between the MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- partners. Thereafter, the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 1 declined to issue summoning evidence was led, and after analysing the same, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.08.2009. The complainant challenged the order in the Sessions Court by filing a revision petition which was accepted by the The Magistrate’s order the police to bring on record the original dissolution deed showed that investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had not and in th Accordingly, the order dated 17.08.2009, after directing the police under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. to other contrary report of the police” 6.1. record and the complainant examined handwriting and finger print expert, who opined Magistrate again directed the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to submit a report. The police vide its enquiry report, dated 14.07.2009, concluded that no offence was made out one of the partners/Sudesh Lamba, was recorded dissolution deed was duly signed by the respective partners, and there was no threat to the complainant. She specifically denied that her signatures on the dissolution deed, dated 05.10.1988, were forged. However, the report was not agreed to by the Magistrate, who summoned the petitioners/company officials, as well as Subhash Chand Goyal and -1340-2011 along with connected petitions partners. Thereafter, the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. However, the Magistrate declined to issue any such direction on the allegations in the summoning evidence was led, and after analysing the same, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.08.2009. The complainant challenged the order in the Sessions Court by filing a revision petition which was accepted by the Additional Sessions Jud he Magistrate’s order was set aside on the ground that failure on the part of the police to bring on record the original dissolution deed showed that investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had not and in this situation the complaint could not have been dismissed. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Magistrate to “reconsider its order dated 17.08.2009, after directing the police under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. to place on record the original of dissolution deed Ex. P other contrary report of the police”. Pursuant thereto, the original dissolution deed was record and the complainant examined handwriting and finger print expert, who opined that signatures had been forged on the dissolution deed. The Magistrate again directed the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to submit a report. The police vide its enquiry report, dated 14.07.2009, concluded that no offence was made out on the allegations. one of the partners/Sudesh Lamba, was recorded dissolution deed was duly signed by the respective partners, and there was no threat to the complainant. She specifically denied that her signatures on dissolution deed, dated 05.10.1988, were forged. However, the report was not agreed to by the Magistrate, who summoned the petitioners/company officials, as well as Subhash Chand Goyal and along with connected petitions 14 partners. Thereafter, the complainant filed a criminal complaint under for registration of FIR. However, the Magistrate on the allegations in the complaint. Pre summoning evidence was led, and after analysing the same, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.08.2009. The complainant challenged the order in the Sessions Court by filing a revision petition which Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 06.05.2010. on the ground that failure on the part of the police to bring on record the original dissolution deed showed that investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had not been carried out proper the complaint could not have been dismissed. was remanded to the Magistrate to “reconsider its order dated 17.08.2009, after directing the police under Section 202 of place on record the original of dissolution deed Ex. P-24 or any Pursuant thereto, the original dissolution deed was brought record and the complainant examined handwriting and finger print expert, that signatures had been forged on the dissolution deed. The Magistrate again directed the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to submit a report. The police vide its enquiry report, dated 14.07.2009, concluded that on the allegations. During enquiry, the statement of one of the partners/Sudesh Lamba, was recorded to the effect that dissolution deed was duly signed by the respective partners, and there was no threat to the complainant. She specifically denied that her signatures on dissolution deed, dated 05.10.1988, were forged. However, the report was not agreed to by the Magistrate, who summoned the petitioners/company officials, as well as Subhash Chand Goyal and Narinder partners. Thereafter, the complainant filed a criminal complaint under for registration of FIR. However, the Magistrate complaint. Pre- summoning evidence was led, and after analysing the same, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.08.2009. The complainant challenged the order in the Sessions Court by filing a revision petition which ge, vide order dated 06.05.2010. on the ground that failure on the part of the police to bring on record the original dissolution deed showed that been carried out properly, the complaint could not have been dismissed. was remanded to the Magistrate to “reconsider its order dated 17.08.2009, after directing the police under Section 202 of 24 or any brought on record and the complainant examined handwriting and finger print expert, that signatures had been forged on the dissolution deed. The Magistrate again directed the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to submit a report. The police vide its enquiry report, dated 14.07.2009, concluded that During enquiry, the statement of that dissolution deed was duly signed by the respective partners, and there was no threat to the complainant. She specifically denied that her signatures on dissolution deed, dated 05.10.1988, were forged. However, the report was not agreed to by the Magistrate, who summoned the Narinder MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- Singh Lamba ( under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 6.2. summoning order in the Sessions Court, Hisar, by filing a revision petition, which was accepted vide judgment dated 31.05.2012, and the case was remanded to the trial Court to consider the evidence afresh and deal with the complaint in acco 6.3. which gave retail dealership of petroleum outlet. At the time of fil first complaint to the police on 20.12.2005, level any allegation against them, nor were they named For the first time, the allegations against the petitioners surfaced when the impugned complaint was filed itself casts a doubt about be an afterthought allegations against the petitioner of the ingredients of the alleged offences is made out against them, as they have essentially been accused of on the basis of a dissolution deed, dated 05.10.1988. By the time dealership was reconstituted Court of petitioners’ complicity in execution of the deed has even prim beneficiar denying the fact that the petitioners acted on a communicat Petroleum Ministry to re -1340-2011 along with connected petitions Lamba (respondents in CRM-M-22825 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 218 and 506 of IPC. Both the respondents in CRM summoning order in the Sessions Court, Hisar, by filing a revision petition, which was accepted vide judgment dated 31.05.2012, and the case was remanded to the trial Court to consider the evidence afresh and deal with the complaint in accordance with law. The petitioners herein are officials of the company/BPCL, which gave retail dealership of petroleum outlet. At the time of fil first complaint to the police on 20.12.2005, level any allegation against them, nor were they named For the first time, the allegations against the petitioners surfaced when the impugned complaint was filed before the Magistrate on 24.12.2007. This itself casts a doubt about veracity of the al be an afterthought on the complainant’s part. allegations against the petitioners/company officials make of the ingredients of the alleged offences is made out against them, as they have essentially been accused of fraudul on the basis of a dissolution deed, dated 05.10.1988. By the time dealership reconstituted, and even as on date, there is no conclusive finding by any Court of law that the deed is a result of forgery, fabrication petitioners’ complicity in execution of the deed has ma facie, nor is there any material indicating that ries of the transaction in any manner. denying the fact that the petitioners acted on a communicat Petroleum Ministry to reconstitute the along with connected petitions 15 22825-2012), as accused to face trial B, 218 and 506 of IPC. Both the respondents in CRM-M-22825-2012 challenged the summoning order in the Sessions Court, Hisar, by filing a revision petition, which was accepted vide judgment dated 31.05.2012, and the case was remanded to the trial Court to consider the evidence afresh and deal with the The petitioners herein are officials of the company/BPCL, which gave retail dealership of petroleum outlet. At the time of filing the first complaint to the police on 20.12.2005, the complainant himself did not level any allegation against them, nor were they named as accused therein. For the first time, the allegations against the petitioners surfaced when the before the Magistrate on 24.12.2007. This veracity of the allegations levelled which appear on the complainant’s part. Further, a perusal of the /company officials makes it clear that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences is made out against them, as they lently reconstituting the dealership on the basis of a dissolution deed, dated 05.10.1988. By the time dealership even as on date, there is no conclusive finding by any a result of forgery, fabrication or fraud. T petitioners’ complicity in execution of the deed has not been establish nor is there any material indicating that they are of the transaction in any manner. Still further, there is no denying the fact that the petitioners acted on a communication of constitute the dealership. Therefore, there is no to face trial challenged the summoning order in the Sessions Court, Hisar, by filing a revision petition, which was accepted vide judgment dated 31.05.2012, and the case was remanded to the trial Court to consider the evidence afresh and deal with the The petitioners herein are officials of the company/BPCL, ing the the complainant himself did not therein. For the first time, the allegations against the petitioners surfaced when the before the Magistrate on 24.12.2007. This legations levelled which appear to Further, a perusal of the s it clear that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences is made out against them, as they reconstituting the dealership on the basis of a dissolution deed, dated 05.10.1988. By the time dealership even as on date, there is no conclusive finding by any The hed they are Still further, there is no the Therefore, there is no MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- substance in the allegations t forgery. Another aspect was executed on 05.10.1988 threat and intimidation was made on 20.12. named only subsequently 24.12.2007. dissolution deed and fact on record that Sudesh forged, has denied the fact and admitted her signatures on the deed by making a statement to the police, as recorded in its report dated submitted to the that all the no threat extended to the complainant. of criminal proceedings against the petitione the Court. 7. Sessions Judge/revisional Court setting aside the Magistrate’s order, dated 17.08.2009, dismissing the complaint accused, is itself without jurisdiction. Once the complaint against the petitioners, dated 24.12.20 dated 17.08.2009, under Section aside the dismissal order, vide order regard can be made to the Supreme Court judgment rendered in Manharibhai -1340-2011 along with connected petitions substance in the allegations that they are party to the alleged fraud or Another aspect that cannot be lost sight of is, the dissolution was executed on 05.10.1988 and first police complaint alleging forgery threat and intimidation was made on 20.12. only subsequently in the criminal complaint to 24.12.2007. This was after about nineteen dissolution deed and two years of reconstitution of the dealership. fact on record that Sudesh Lamba, whose signatures are alleged to have been forged, has denied the fact and admitted her signatures on the deed by making a statement to the police, as recorded in its report dated submitted to the Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. S that all the partners duly affixed their signatures on the deed, and there was no threat extended to the complainant. In these circumstances, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitione the Court. Further, the order dated 06.05.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/revisional Court setting aside the Magistrate’s order, dated 17.08.2009, dismissing the complaint , is itself without jurisdiction. Once the complaint against the petitioners, dated 24.12.2007, stood dismissed by the Magistrate vide order dated 17.08.2009, they had a right of hearing before the revisional Court under Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. which was not afforded aside the dismissal order, vide order dated 06.05.2010. A reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme Court judgment rendered in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia case (supra 53. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and along with connected petitions 16 hat they are party to the alleged fraud or that cannot be lost sight of is, the dissolution deed and first police complaint alleging forgery threat and intimidation was made on 20.12.2005, and the petitioners were in the criminal complaint to the Magistrate on nineteen years of execution of the nstitution of the dealership. It is also a Lamba, whose signatures are alleged to have been forged, has denied the fact and admitted her signatures on the deed by making a statement to the police, as recorded in its report dated 14.07.2009, Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. She has also stated their signatures on the deed, and there was In these circumstances, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of order dated 06.05.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/revisional Court setting aside the Magistrate’s order, dated against the petitioners and other , is itself without jurisdiction. Once the complaint against the dismissed by the Magistrate vide order they had a right of hearing before the revisional Court which was not afforded to them prior to setting dated 06.05.2010. A reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme Court judgment rendered in supra), holding as under: We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and hat they are party to the alleged fraud or deed and first police complaint alleging forgery, ners were the Magistrate on years of execution of the It is also a Lamba, whose signatures are alleged to have been forged, has denied the fact and admitted her signatures on the deed by 14.07.2009, he has also stated their signatures on the deed, and there was In these circumstances, continuance rs will be an abuse of process of order dated 06.05.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/revisional Court setting aside the Magistrate’s order, dated against the petitioners and other , is itself without jurisdiction. Once the complaint against the dismissed by the Magistrate vide order they had a right of hearing before the revisional Court prior to setting dated 06.05.2010. A reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme Court judgment rendered in We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- In terms of th becomes unsustainable being without jurisdiction; resultantly, the consequential order the petitioners is 8. company officials, allowed. Niwas Agrawal -1340-2011 along with connected petitions A.N. Santhanam. We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the Revisional C of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed the crime have, howe in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments contrary are overruled. n terms of this settled law, the order of revisional Court, dated 06.05.2010, becomes unsustainable being without jurisdiction; resultantly, the consequential order passed by the Magistrate the petitioners is also rendered bad in law and unsustainable. In view of the discussion above, the petitions company officials, CRM-M-1340-2011 allowed. Criminal complaint case no.445 Niwas Agrawal v. Narinder Singh Lamba and others along with connected petitions 17 A.N. Santhanam. We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court or sions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the Revisional Court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed the crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments of the High Courts to the settled law, the order of revisional Court, dated 06.05.2010, becomes unsustainable being without jurisdiction; resultantly, the by the Magistrate, dated 02.11.2010, summoning bad in law and unsustainable. In view of the discussion above, the petitions filed by the 2011 and CRM-M-2166-2011, case no.445-1, dated 24.12.2007, titled Ram Narinder Singh Lamba and others, under Sections 420, A.N. Santhanam. We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court or sions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section ourt overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to ver, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the of the High Courts to the settled law, the order of revisional Court, dated 06.05.2010, becomes unsustainable being without jurisdiction; resultantly, the 02.11.2010, summoning filed by the , are Ram 420, MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 467, 468, 471, 120 Divisional proceedings arising and 02.11.2010, passed by the Hansi, respectively, filed by the complainant, 9. 11.02.2025 Maninder -1340-2011 along with connected petitions 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 218 and 506 of IPC, Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, proceedings arising therefrom, including and 02.11.2010, passed by the Additional Ses , respectively, are hereby quashed filed by the complainant, CRM-M-22825- A photocopy of this order be placed on 11.02.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable along with connected petitions 18 B, 218 and 506 of IPC, pending before the Court of Sub Magistrate, Hansi, along with all consequential including judgment/orders dated 06.05.2010 Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, and SDJM, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. The petition -2012, stands dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Sub h all consequential 06.05.2010 sions Judge, Hisar, and SDJM, petition TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) MANINDER 2025.03.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.