Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Supreme Court Quashes Summoning Order in High-Profile Case Involving Politicians Sukhbir Singh Badal, Daljit Singh Cheema, and Parkash Singh Badal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India quashed the summoning order passed by the Trial Court in a high-profile case involving prominent politicians Sukhbir Singh Badal, Daljit Singh Cheema, and Parkash Singh Badal. The Court found a lack of evidence in the allegations of cheating and forgery against the accused, leading to the conclusion that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Court finds lack of evidence in allegations of cheating and forgery; Criminal proceedings quashed due to abuse of process of law and court.

The case, arising from a private complaint filed by Balwant Singh Khera, accused the politicians of committing offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 466 (forgery of court records), 467 (forgery of valuable securities), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The complaint alleged that during the registration of the political party Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), the accused had made false claims and submitted a false document conflicting with the Constitution of the Party. It was further claimed that the party's registration was based on false information, thereby deceiving the Election Commission of India (ECI).

After considering the allegations, the Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the IPC and examined the evidence on record. The Court held that the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC was not made out, as there was no evidence of dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver any property. Similarly, the offense of forgery under Section 465 IPC was not established since no false document was produced. The Court further observed that the offenses under Sections 466, 467, and 468 IPC, relating to forgery, were not proven based on the facts and allegations in the complaint.

The Court emphasized that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused would amount to an abuse of the legal process, considering the lack of ingredients for the offenses and the significant delay of 20 years in filing the complaint. It noted that the registration application for the political party was made in 1989, and the present complaint was filed in 2009, raising concerns about the delay in seeking redress.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court quashed the summoning order passed by the Trial Court and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the accused. It clarified that the decision was solely based on the grounds mentioned in the judgment and did not express any opinion on the constitution of the political party or the pending proceedings before the High Court of Delhi.

The judgment brings relief to the accused politicians and marks a significant development in this long-standing legal battle. The decision underscores the importance of substantiating allegations and ensuring that legal proceedings are not abused as a means to settle political disputes.

Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal  vs Balwant Singh Khera and Ors.            

Latest Legal News