Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 453 (PNJ)

Harbans Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-04-27

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Second respondent-Jaswinder Pal Singh sent a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 28 dated 23.1.1997 under Sections 448, 453, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. has been registered at Police Station Division 5, Ludhiana, on the directions of this Court, wherein the following material allegations are found :- 2. Plots 156 and 157 were allotted to Gurbax Kaur by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana who is turn sold the said plots in favour of Jaswant Singh and Gurbachan Singh, sons of Dewan Singh. Complainant-Jaswinder Pal Singh purchased them under sale deed dated 25.10.1994 and an agreement to sell. Petitioner-Harbans Singh who is the owner of adjoining plot 155, has after breaking the walls, entered forcibly into the plots. The complainant has come to know that Harbans Singh has prepared forged documents and whenever the complainant visited his plots, Harbans Singh threatened to eliminate the complainant. 3. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition praying initially for quashing the F.I.R. in question (annexure P-1) and the connected proceedings on the ground that the same are barred by provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, Gurbax Kaur was not residing at Ludhiana and had given possession of these plots 156 and 157 to the petitioner for looking after the same, and has in the year 1990, executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, an agreement to sell was also executed on 16.6.1990, but since the sale deed was not executed, a civil suit was filed for specific performance and permanent injunction, at Ludhiana. The petitioner also claims that in pursuance of the orders of the Court, the sale deed has been registered in favour of Manjit Kaur (daughter-in-law of the petitioner) on 13.9.1993. The petitioner has also alleged that Jaswinder Pal Singh has filed a civil suit (annexure P-1/A) against Manjit Kaur, petitioner and others challenging the registered sale deed. 4. On notice, the State of Punjab filed a reply opposing this petition, and the 2nd respondent-Jaswinder Pal Singh also filed a separate reply raising among others the plea that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. Arguments were heard and orders were reserved. 4. On notice, the State of Punjab filed a reply opposing this petition, and the 2nd respondent-Jaswinder Pal Singh also filed a separate reply raising among others the plea that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. Arguments were heard and orders were reserved. The petitioner then filed an applications for taking on record annexures P-9 to P-12 and for staying further proceedings arising from the F.I.R. in question. According to the petitioner, Sukhjeevan Singh, Jaswinder Pal Singh and Sadhu Singh have also filed suits with regard to the same/similar properties and, therefore, wanted these additional documents to be taken on file. The arguments were again heard, but during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this petition for quashing the F.I.R. and restricted his arguments only for staying the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the civil suit pending between the same parties. I have considered the arguments and the records placed on the file. 6. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the power of attorney allegedly executed by Gurbax Kaur in favour of petitioner-Harbans Singh is a forged document and by using the same, he has seen to it that a fraudulent sale deed is executed in favour of his daughter-in-law Manjit Kaur. That is how the F.I.R. came to be registered. But, the contention of the petitioner is that the sale deed in favour of Manjit Kaur in respect of the properties in question was executed in pursuance of an agreement to sell, that since the sale deed was not executed in pursuance of that agreement, Manjit Kaur filed a Civil Suit 245 of 1992 for specific performance on the file of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana against Gurbax Kaur through Harbans Singh (petitioner herein) as her power of attorney, that the suit was decreed and in execution of that decree, the sale deed in favour of Manjit Kaur has been executed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the 2nd respondent- Jaswinder Pal Singh has filed a civil suit (annexure P-1/A) against Manjit Kaur, Harbans Singh and another for declaring that the sale deed dated 13.9.1993 registered on 15.9.1993 in favour of Manjit Kaur in pursuance of the Civil Suit 245 of 4.5.1992 is null and void and based upon a forged and fabricated power of attorney, is pending. The initial contention of the petitioner in the present petition was that it was the Court which directed the specific performance of the contract, that should have lodged the complaint, if the power of attorney was a forgery, and that the police were not competent to take cognizance of the alleged offence and register the F.I.R. in question, in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. But the Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, AIR 1998 S.C. 768 : [1998(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 436 (SC)] held that Section 195 Cr.P.C. has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into the F.I.R., which discloses a cognizable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in Court. The apex Court also held that this statutory power of the police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195 Cr.P.C., though the Court would not be competent to take cognizance of the offence. The Honble Supreme Court in Sachinda Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 S.C. 1121 : [1998(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 892 (SC)] also held that the bar contained in Section 195(l)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. is not applicable to a case where the forgery was committed before the document was produced in a Court. That is why the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer in this petition and wanted only stay of proceedings till the decision of the civil suit between the parties. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (1) R.C.R. 167 : [1997(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 668 (Pb. & Hry.)] in support of his contention. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (1) R.C.R. 167 : [1997(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 668 (Pb. & Hry.)] in support of his contention. But in that case, proceedings were pending before the Criminal Court and even the charges had been framed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon another decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1999 (2) R.C.R. 245 : [1999(l) All India Criminal Law Reporter 63 (Pb. & Hry.)] in support of his contention that the criminal proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit between the parties. But, the petitioner has not been able to point out as to what is the proceeding pending in criminal court arising from the F.I.R. in question. If the F.I.R. is still under Investigation, this Court will not interfere with the investigation by staying investigation. No material has been placed before the Court by the petitioner showing that the case is pending before any Court, and the stage of such proceedings, if any, has also not been indicated. 9. Therefore, at this stage, this Court will not interfere with the investigation. However, if, in pursuance of the F.I.R. in question, some proceedings are commenced in the Court, then it will be open to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law for getting appropriate relief. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.