Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1284 (PNJ)

Niranjana Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-10-31

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Second respondent-Kulwant Singh son of Kartar Singh gave a complaint on the basis of which F.I.R. 196 dated 5.5.1999 has been registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. wherein the following material allegations are found : 2. The property bearing Municipal Corporation No. BXXX-1531/1 Mohalla Beant Pura, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana is owned by Niranajan Singh (Petitioner herein) and Kartar Singh (father of the complainant), a portion of which is under the tenancy of Amrit Lal. After the death of Kartar Singh on 25.6.1993, petitioner-Niranjan Singh, taking undue benefit of the young and tender age of the son of Kartar Singh, started forging and fabricating documents in order to grab the properties owned by Kartar Singh. 3. With that dishonest intention, petitioner-Naranjan Singh started claiming that the above said property is owned by him and that Kartar Singh had no share in the same. With this dishonsest intention, petitioner-Naranjan Singh filed an Ejectment Petition against the tenant-Amrit Lal. The complainant came to know that the petition has been signed by Kartar Singh and on enquiries, the complainant came to know that petitioner-Naranjana Singh has forged the signatures of Kartar Singh on that petition; and the said petition has been used by the petitioner in the Court, with the mala fide intention to receive the rent from Amrit Lal. Petitioner-Niranjan Singh has also received the rent from that Court. 4. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the said F.I.R. 5. On notice, the respondents have entered appearance. The 1st respondent namely, the State of Punjab has filed a reply through the S.P. Headquarters, Ludhiana mainly alleging as follows : 6. The complainant is the nephew of Niranjan Singh. Complainants father died on 25.6.1993. The photo copy of the Ejectment Petition filed in the Court of Rent Controller, Ludhiana against Amrit Lal (copy attached as annexure R-1) shows that it has been filed by the petitioner and Kartar Singh against Amrit Lal on 6.4.1998 and purports to have been signed by Kartar Singh. The signatures of Kartar Singh have been forged by Niranjan Singh (petitioner). In the body of the petition also, the word "petitioners" has been used. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed into Court on 4.7.1999. The signatures of Kartar Singh have been forged by Niranjan Singh (petitioner). In the body of the petition also, the word "petitioners" has been used. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed into Court on 4.7.1999. Besides committing the forgery, the petitioner is using the same in the Court of the Rent Controller. The names of both petitioner and Kartar Singh are mentioned at the end of the Rent Petition also. It can be none else than the petitioner who could have committed the forgery. The depositing of the rent into the joint account does not absolve the petitioner from the liability for committing fraud and forgery, and using the forged document in the Court. 7. The second-respondent has also filed a reply to this petition containing similar allegations and also reiterating the allegations found in the complaint. The Second respondent has further alleged that he has not received any rent. 8. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 9. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the allegations against the petitioner is that he has filed an Ejectment Petition against the tenant in respect of a property owned by the petitioner and Kartar Singh (the father of the complainant). Kartar Singh had died even on 25.6.1993, but the photo copy of the Ejectment Petition shows both petitioner-Niranjan Singh and Kartar Singh have been shown as petitioners in the said petition which was verified on 6.4.1998. This petition was presented into Court on 28.4.1998. This petition purports to have been signed by Kartar Singh also. Even the verification purports to have been singed by Kartar Singh also. The case of the complaainant is that Kartar Singh had died on 25.6.1993 itself, and this petition has been field by Niranjan Singh, as if it has been signed by Kartar Singh also by forging the signatures of Kartar Singh. According to the complainant, this forged petitioner has been used by filing it into the Court of the Rent Controller. According to the complainant, the petitioner has also received the rent paid by the tenant in the court. According to the complainant, this forged petitioner has been used by filing it into the Court of the Rent Controller. According to the complainant, the petitioner has also received the rent paid by the tenant in the court. The contention of the petitioner is that in the Vakalatnama and the site plan filed along with the Ejectment Petition, there is only the signature of petitioner Niranjana Singh and there was no reason or occasion for the petitioner to forge the signatures of Kartar Singh in the Ejectment Petition alone.The petitioner also contends that a sum of Rs. 2400/- which was tendered by the tenant in the Court, was received by the petitioner and deposited into the joint account of the petitioner and Kartar Singh and, therefore, the contentiont that the petitioner has forged the signatures of Kartar Singh in order to receive the rent, is not correct. The petitioner also contends that the Ejectment Petition contained only his signatures and that he has also filed a petition before the Rent Controller to enquire into the circumstances under which the signatures of Kartar Singh have appeared therein. The petitioner also claims that he has filed a complaint under Sections 466, 420-B and 34 I.P.C. against complainant Kulwant Singh and others with regard to this forgery. According to the petitioner, he has not committed any offence and the same is also evident from the enquiry report submitted by the S.P. Headquarters, Ludhiana on the basis of the enquiry by Ante Fraud Staff, Ludhiana. 10. But the F.I.R. mentions that Kartar Singh had died on 25.6.1993, whereas petitioner-Niranjan Singh has filed the Ejectment Petition, as if it was filed by Kartar Singh also by forging the signatures of Kartar Singh in the Ejectment Petition. It also mentions that that this forged document has been put into the Court of the Rent Controlelr and thereby the petitioner has used this forged document with the intent to receive the rent. This Court in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., will not go into these allegations minutely to find out whether these allegations are true or false. The Court is now concerned with the quesiton whether on the allegations found in the F.I.R., the offence as alleged therein is prima facie made out against the petitioner or not. A perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie makes out a case against the petitioner. The Court is now concerned with the quesiton whether on the allegations found in the F.I.R., the offence as alleged therein is prima facie made out against the petitioner or not. A perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie makes out a case against the petitioner. The photo copy of the Ejectment Petition shows that it purports to have been filed by petitioner-Niranjan Singh and Kartar Singh. Even in para-1 of the petition, it has been stated that the "petitioners are owners". In sub-para (xv) of para-1, and sub-para (ii) of para-2, the word "petitioners" has been used. The petition purports to have been signed by Niranjan Singh and Kartar Singh. In the verification portion also, it has been mentioned that the contents are true to "our" knowledge and the verification purports to have been signed by Kartar Singh also. Therefore, the document collected by the Investigating Agency also prima facie supports the F.I.R. 11. Of course, the petitioner has filed an application before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana (annexure P-3) requesting him to make an enquiry as to how the signatures of Kartar Singh are found on the petition and the verification. This Court, of course, will not take into consideration this document now filed by the petitioner into Court for the purpose of quashing, but there are certain significant allegations in this petition which go against the petitioner himself. In para-2, the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner had engaged Mr. R.K.Talwar, Advocate as the Counsel, who got the signatures on the petition and the verification, site plan, power of attorney and other papers, that the name of Kartar Singh no doubt was mentioned in the petition, but his signatures were not subscribed by the petitioner on the petition or its verfication etc. Kartar Singh had died even in the year 1993 and that being so, the question arises as to why and how the petitioner allowed the name of Kartar Singh to be there in the petition as a co- petitioner had also as to why the name of Kartar Singh was typed below the verification portion also. Kartar Singh had died even in the year 1993 and that being so, the question arises as to why and how the petitioner allowed the name of Kartar Singh to be there in the petition as a co- petitioner had also as to why the name of Kartar Singh was typed below the verification portion also. The petitioner has also filed a Criminal Complaint (copy annexure P-4) under Sections 466/120-B/34 I.P.C. against the complainant Kulwant Singh and others alleging that they had forged the signatures of Kartar Singh on the Ejectment Petition, Here agaian, we find certain significant allegtions which are as follows : "However Shri R.K. Talwar Advocate drafted the petition showing both Niranjan Singh and Kartar Singh as petitioners in the said petition. When the complainant was called to sign on the pleadings and vakalatnama by Shri R.K.Talwar Advocate, it was disclosed to him that Kartar Singh is not alive, who told him that there is no need to delete the name of Shri Kartar Singh from the array of the petitioner and that the petition can be signed by the complainant alone. So the complainant put his signatures on the petition, vakalatnama and on the plan." 12. These allegations in annexures P-3 and P-4 show that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the name of Kartar Singh was there on the petition even though Kartar Singh was not alive on that date, that he had brought it to the notice of his counsel, who said that the name of Kartar Singh need not be deleted and that the petition can be signed by the petitioner aione. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner claims that he alone signed in the petition, vakalatnama etc. The petitioner has also produced annexures P-5 and P-6 to show that the Ante Fraud Staff has enquired into the complaint made by Kulwant Singh (complainant herein) and has found that the allegations are not proved. A perusal of these documents annexure P-5 and P-6 clearly goes to show that no serious attempt at investigation has been made on the complaint which has led to the registration of the present F.I.R., because, there have been several disputes between the parties. A perusal of these documents annexure P-5 and P-6 clearly goes to show that no serious attempt at investigation has been made on the complaint which has led to the registration of the present F.I.R., because, there have been several disputes between the parties. Further, as pointed out already, these documents now filed into Court by the petitioner and which are not part of the F.I.R., and which have not been collected by the Investigating Agency, cannot be now looked into for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. in quesiton. But, I have referred to the allegations found in annexures P-3 and P-4 only to show what sort of explanation has been given by the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the allegations in the F.I.R. go to prima facie establish a case against the petitioner. 13. Another important, factor is that the charge-sheet in this case has been filed into the trial Court on 4.7.1999. Once the charge-sheet is filed into the trial Court and is under the gaze of the said Court, this Court will not in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., undertake the exercise of quashing the proceedings by minutely examining the allegations found in the F.I.R. This position has been settled by a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and another v. P.P. Sharma and another, (1991 Cr. L.J. 1438) : [1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 722 (SC)], wherein it has been held as follows : "We are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction." 14. Therefore, on this ground alone, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Of course, the present petition was presented into Court in June, 1999 itself and notice had been ordered to the A.G. Punjab and the 2nd respondent on 4.6.1999 for the hearing dated 8.7.1999 but no stay had been granted at that time. It was only on 8.7.1999, on an application by the petitioner the filing of the charge-sheet was stayed, but even before that order was passed, the charge-sheet had been filed. It was only on 8.7.1999, on an application by the petitioner the filing of the charge-sheet was stayed, but even before that order was passed, the charge-sheet had been filed. Therefore, in view of the filing of the charge-sheet before the trial Court also, this Court is not inclined to interfere and quash the proceedings. 15. Ultimately, this petition fails and is dismissed.