Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 117 (PNJ)

Sunita Rani v. State Of Punjab

2001-01-22

AMAR DUTT

body2001
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Sunita Rani and Ramesh Kumar through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are seeking the quashment of the FIR No. 25 dated 26.3.2000 which was registered in Police Station Sudhar, Police District Jagraon, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the complaint which was registered on the application of one Jagtar Singh, the petitioners had entered into an agreement with him on 29.4.1999 for the sale of residential properties in village Rattan bearing Khewat No. 5/5, Khatauni No. 10/14, Khasra No. 27/14, 15, measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas (1573/4800th shares) for a consideration of Rs. 21 lacs and received 5 lacs in cash as earnest money in the presence of Inderjeet Singh Gill and Raminder Singh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 23.3.2000 and at the time of execution of the agreement, the petitioners had represented that they were the owners of the property in dispute and no portion thereof had been sold to anyone and the original sale deed pertaining to this property had been handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant had asked the petitioner to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed in his favour but they had been putting the matter off on one pretext or the other. A legal notice had also been served on them and the complainant had ultimately found that the petitioners had cheated him as they had already sold some other shops on the property in dispute to other persons prior to the agreement. Inquiries had also revealed that the petitioners had forged the copy of the jamabandi and, thus, they had committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Quashing of the FIR is being sought on the ground that on 26.3.1999 the complainant had approached the SSP, Ludhiana with a request that the petitioners were not paying money due to him despite repeated requests. This application of the complainant was an abuse of the process of law which had been moved with a view to put undue pressure on the petitioners for recovery of money in pursuance of this application. This application of the complainant was an abuse of the process of law which had been moved with a view to put undue pressure on the petitioners for recovery of money in pursuance of this application. The police of Police Station Sudhar had called Mohan Lal, Ramesh Kumar and Ravi Kumar sons of Dhani Ram and forced them to enter into an agreement accordingh to which the amount due from the petitioners was adjusted towards the earnest money which was payable by the complainant to them under agreement which they were forced to execute. The petitioners have asserted that both the compromise dated 17.4.1999 as well as the agreement to sell which was entered into on 29.4.1999, have been executed by them under pressure of the police and therefore, was void, ab initio and unforceable under law. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the FIR which has been lodged against them has to be quashed as the respondents can not be given the liberty to abuse the process of law in connivance with the police. 4. In the reply filed by Jagtar Singh respondent it is stated that the investigation of the police cannot be scuttled on the threshold through an application in which the petitioners have misrepresented the facts. Tire petitioners are seeking to short circuit the investigation into allegations which clearly implicate them of offences under which the FIR has been registered. It was pleaded that copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97 was fabricated by the petitioners, and in case it has not been done so, the respondent Jagtar Singh would not have handed over the amount of Rs. 5 lacks to them. He asserts that the compromise deed and other documents have been fabricated by the petitioners with a view to strengthen their petition and the assertions made by them to the effect that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence, are incorrect. 5. On behalf of the State it was submitted that the case is pending investigation and the bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana have already been rejected. According to the State statements of 6 witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the same is sufficient evidence against the petitioners to warrant the continuation of the investigation. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana have already been rejected. According to the State statements of 6 witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the same is sufficient evidence against the petitioners to warrant the continuation of the investigation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 6. In the present case, the petitioners are seeking the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the same is an abuse of the process of law and to support this submission, they are relying upon a compromise which is stated to have been entered into between the parties before the police. They are, thus, putting forth different versions according to which they have been forced to enter into an agreement to the disposal of a property which they did not want to part with. 7. This plea of theirs has to be gone into by the police during the course of investigation. Of course, the petitioners would have liberty to place the documents and the evidence in support of their stand which is now being sought by them before the Investigating Agency. Even if, the stand taken by them does not find favour with the police, they would have an opportunity of proving the same by translating their pleas into admissible evidence before the trial Court. The petitioners are requiring this Court to go into the disputed questions of fact which have not even been proved by admissible evidence before it. This request of theirs, I am afraid, cannot be accepted in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the petitioners have apparently not brought their points of view before the Investigating Agency which is at this stage is inquiring into the correctness of the allegations made on behalf of Jagtar Singh respondent. The petitioners who are joining the investigation to appraise the Investigating Agency of their stand point and in case they have any grouse about the manner in which investigation is being conducted, they should bring it to the notice of the Chief of the District Police who would after taking into consideration the points raised before him pass an appropriate order to ensure that the investigation is conducted impartially by the Investigating Officer. 8. In view of above discussion and for the foregoing reasons this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.