Review Petition Filed Before Supreme Court Against Quashing Of Cheating Case Against Former Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal & Akali Dal Leaders Over Dual Constitution

This verdict was delivered in April by a division bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar in a batch of pleas filed by the trio challenging summons issued in connection with a police case lodged against them on the strength of a complaint by a Hoshiarpur-based social activist and national vice-president of the Socialist Party, Balwant Singh Khera, alleging forgery, cheating, and concealment of facts.

The original complainant has sought a review of the April 28 judgment – which was delivered days after the demise of Parkash Singh Badal – claiming that it contained several ‘serious errors apparent on the face of the record’ resulting in a ‘grave miscarriage of justice’ in this matter. The petition states:

“The errors are by way of mistakes of fact, as well as of law. The errors include – erroneous recording and appreciation of the allegations in the complaint, application of the incorrect ingredients of various provisions of the law, and erroneous recording that no false document was produced, although several such documents are on record, apart from a witness statement categorically admitting to the deception and fraud alleged.”

Accusing the top court of conducting a mini-trial while quashing the summons – despite several judgments directing high courts to only find out if a prima facie case was made out based on the material collected, the petitioner has stated, “This court has sat like a trial court and despite a plethora of crucial evidence against the accused, has disregarded all of it on patently erroneous grounds – by way of errors of fact and of law. The role of the Supreme Court was to see whether a prima facie case was made out by examining the sufficiency of material for passing the ‘summoning order’ and the high court judgment but, [they] have been erroneously overlooked.”

Even the main allegation, the petition states, has been erroneously recorded in a limited manner. The review petitioner has argued that while the court considered the main allegation to be that of filing a false memorandum annexed with the application for registration under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, “the issues are far larger and include the filing of a false constitution and undertaking before the Election Commission of India and the using of two different constitutions before two different authorities – one, a false and forged one, to meet the eligibility conditions for the party’s registration as a political party, and the other, the real one, to meet the eligibility conditions to contest the Sikh Gurdwara elections”.

After highlighting a host of other alleged errors in the decision rendered by the top court, the petitioner insists that this was a ‘fit case’ for invoking the power of review by the Supreme Court enshrined in Article 137 of the Indian Constitution read with Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The petition states:

“The errors in this judgment have caused a very important criminal trial against the accused – powerful politicians – to get nipped in the bud and aborted at its nascent stage, despite abundant and compelling material and evidence pointing at their role in the offences alleged to have been committed. The trial is important as it reveals a plethora of evidence showing their involvement in a series of fraud, cheating, and forgery in a most brazen manner, and they may not be allowed to get away with such fraud. This is thus a clear case for invoking the power of review by the Supreme Court…to set right such wrongs that may have arisen due to judicial fallibility. It has been repeatedly held that the delivery of justice prevails above all, and that justice, must not only be done, but also, be seen to be done.”

The review petition has been filed through Advocate Indira Unninayar.

Background

Under consideration was the issue of whether an offence of forgery was made out since the party has two different versions of its constitution, a secular version for the Election Commission, and another for the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), the apex religious body responsible for the management of Gurudwaras across the country.

The summons that has now been quashed was issued in a criminal case that was lodged on the strength of a complaint by a Hoshiarpur-based social activist and national vice-president of the Socialist Party, Balwant Singh Khera, alleging forgery, cheating, and concealment of facts. He accused the Shiromani Akali Dal of allegedly giving a false undertaking to the Election Commission claiming to be a secular party and abiding by the principles of secularism while contenting elections conducted by the apex religious body at the same time. The appellants were summoned to face the trial under Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (Punishment for forgery), 466 (Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) read with Section 120 (Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Badals and Cheema approached the apex court assailing an August 2021 order by which the Punjab and Haryana High Court had refused the quash the summons against them by the additional chief judicial magistrate of Hoshiarpur.

In April, a bench headed by Justice MR Shah allowed the appeals and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against Sukhbir Singh Badal, Parkash Singh Badal, and Daljit Singh Cheema, observing:

“We have considered the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and observe that even taking into consideration the allegations, none of the ingredients of the offences are made out. Therefore, the high court ought to have quashed and set aside the summoning order. Even assuming the complainant's averments to be true, the ingredients of the offences are not made out. The summoning order by the trial court is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and this is a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceedings, including the summoning order.”

Before concluding, the bench also clarified, “We have set aside the summoning order only on the aforesaid ground and not said anything on the constitution of the party. The present order shall not affect the pending proceedings before the High Court of Delhi which is reported to be pending against an order passed by the Election Commission of India.”

Parkash Singh Badal passed away at the age of 95 on April 25, days before this judgement was passed.

Case Title

Balwant Singh Khera v. Sukhbir Singh Badal & Ors. | Review Petition (Criminal) No. ______ of 2023