Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1286 (PNJ)

Jit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-11-20

R.C.KATHURIA

body2001
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. The petitioners, while invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seek quashing of F.I.R. No. 75 dated 25.5.1990, registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 193, 196, 204, 205, 209 and 210 of Indian Penal Code with Police Station Lehra, report submitted under Section 173 of the Code and the charge framed as per order dated 21.8.1993 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam. 2. Rur Singh had submitted a written complaint before Judicial Magistrate, Sunam, who had sent the same to the police station Lehra for registration of the case. It was alleged in the complaint that Khera Singh son of Saida Singh owned the land measuring 32 Kanals 18 Marlas, situated in Village Daska, fully described in Jamabandi for the year 1986-87, mentioned in para 2 of the complaint. Dula Singh son of Ami Chand, Barkat son of Ami Chand and Karam Singh son of Saida Singh also owned land measuring 42 Kanals 17 Marlas, situated in Village Daska, detailed in para 2 of the complaint. Rurr Singh claimed himself to be legal heir of aforesaid persons, who (except Karam Singh) had died during the disturbance at the time of creation of Pakistan while Karam Singh had died before that. Accused Inder Singh, Santokh Singh, Puran Singh, Jaswant Singh, Nirmal Singh and Darshan Singh connived and obtained a collusive decree of above mentioned land by putting a fictitious person as Khera Singh in Court, though factually Khera Singh was dead at that time. In addition, Inder Singh, accused No. 6, fabricated a Mukhtiarnama (Power of Attorney) of Khera Singh, Karam Singh, Barkat Singh and Dula Singh in his favour with the help of Jagpal Singh, accused No. 9, and Piara Singh, accused No. 10. On the basis of said Power of Attorney, Inder Singh executed a sale deed dated 2.3.1987 which was got registered before the Sub Registrar, Lehra, on these allegations the case was registered on 25.5.1990 by SI Rajinder Pal, SHO, Police Station Lehra. The investigation was conducted by ASI Parkash Chand of Police Station Lehra. He took into possession record of sub Registrar, Lehra and arrested the accused involved in the commission of crime. The investigation was conducted by ASI Parkash Chand of Police Station Lehra. He took into possession record of sub Registrar, Lehra and arrested the accused involved in the commission of crime. Further investigation was carried by Gurdip Singh, Sub Inspector/Incharge Police Post Daska and Sub Inspector Piara Singh. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code was filed against the accused under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 193, 196, 204, 205, 209, 210 of Indian Penal Code. On the basis of report submitted and the documents attached therewith, charge under these Sections was also formed against the accused by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam. With above background, present petition has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the threshold of the arguments stated before me that Jit Singh, petitioner No. 1, does not want to pursue the petition. Accepting the prayer made, the petition qua him is dismissed. 5. In respect of petitioners No. 2 to 6, it was submitted by him that they are bonafide purchasers for consideration of the land in dispute and had purchased the same as per sale deed, registered with Sub Registrar on 5.1.1987, which was executed by Inder Singh accused acting as general power of attorney of the vendors and for that reason, no criminal proceedings could be filed against them and consequently, F.I.R. No. 75 dated 25.5.1990, report under Section 173 of the Code and the charge framed against them deserve to be quashed. Additionally, it was also submitted by him that civil suit with regard to validity of the decree and sale deed has also been filed by the complainant and this very question is to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. 6. Opposing the submission made, it has been strenuously urged by the State Counsel that Inder Singh accused has admitted in his statement recorded on 15.10.1973 in the Court of Shri Mohan Singh, D.R.O. that Khera Singh, Barkat Singh and Karam Singh had died and Rurr Singh was their legal heir. 6. Opposing the submission made, it has been strenuously urged by the State Counsel that Inder Singh accused has admitted in his statement recorded on 15.10.1973 in the Court of Shri Mohan Singh, D.R.O. that Khera Singh, Barkat Singh and Karam Singh had died and Rurr Singh was their legal heir. Despite this admission of Inder Singh, still Santokh Singh, Puran Singh, Nirmal Singh and Darshan Singh obtained a collusive decree from the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sunam on the basis of admitted statement of Khera Singh, who had died much earlier to the date of decree viz at the time of partition of the country. Regarding the liability of the petitioners-accused in the commission of crime, he has referred to the general power of attorney, purported to have been executed by Khera Singh, Karam Singh, Barkat Singh and Dulla Singh in favour of Inder Singh accused which was attested by Jagpal Singh Lambardar and Piara Singh knowing fully well that those persons had died before partition of the country which fact clearly shows that these accused have facilitated and helped Inder Singh to transfer the land owned by Khera Singh in favour of petitioners No. 2 to 6. 7. The stand taken from the side of State cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Dealing with this very contention, the learned trial Magistrate, at the time of farming of the charge had observed in para 3 of the order as under :- "A perusal of jamabandi for the year 1962/63 shows that Khera Singh s/o Sada Sigh was owner of the land of which the accused No. 1 to 5 have got a collusive decree in their favour. Photo copy of statement of Inder Singh accused No. 6 shows that he admitted that Khera Singh, Barkat Singh and Karam Singh died and Rurr Singh complainant is their legal heir. His statement was given on 15.10.1973 in the court of Sh. Mohan Singh D.R.O. Decree dated 3.2.1988 shows that the accused No. 1 to 5 got collusive declaration from the court of Sh. J.S. Klar, SJIC, Sunam, and it was based upon the admitted statement of Khera Singh who alleged to be died. His statement was given on 15.10.1973 in the court of Sh. Mohan Singh D.R.O. Decree dated 3.2.1988 shows that the accused No. 1 to 5 got collusive declaration from the court of Sh. J.S. Klar, SJIC, Sunam, and it was based upon the admitted statement of Khera Singh who alleged to be died. Photo copy of "Mukhtiarnama" was executed by Khera Singh, Karam Singh, Barkat Singh and Dulla in favour of the accused No. 6 Inder Singh and it was attested by the accused No. 9 Jaspal Singh Lumberdar and the accused No. 10 Piara Singh sarpanch. Then on the basis of this "Mukhtiarnama" the accused No. 6 Inder Singh executed sale deeds dated 2.3.1987 in favour of the accused No. 11 to 14 and Jit Singh No. 7 and Karnail Singh No. 8 attested the sale deed date 2.3.1987. This all shows that there was a sufficient documentary evidence against all the accused. The contention of learned counsel for the accused that since civil litigation is pending so criminal prosecution can not be launched is untenable as there is no bar to start criminal prosecution simultaneously with the civil litigation." 8. No fault can be found with the above observations of the trial Judge. The fact that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers for consideration is a plea available to them in the civil suit filed. Their complicity in getting the sale deed executed in their favour on the basis of forged power of attorney obtained by Inder Singh, as such, cannot prima facie, at this stage be ignored. 9. As regards the question that the civil suit is also pending wherein plea with regard to invalidity of the decree passed in civil suit decided by Sub Judge Ist Class, Sunam, on 21.8.1993 has been taken and legality of the Mukhtiarnama is under challenge and for that reason parallel proceedings should not be allowed to continue on the criminal side, as such, cannot be accepted. 10. Dealing with the issue raised, it will be appropriate to notice the observations made in M.S Shariff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 S.C. 397, wherein it was laid down that as between the civil court and the criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is not a relevant consideration. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is not a relevant consideration. Law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other or even relevant except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment. Another relevant factor to be noted is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should await till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. Public interest demands that criminal justice should be swift and it should ensure that the guilty in punished while the events are still fresh in public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that is undesirable to let things slide till memories has grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case may make some other course more expedient and just. Therefore, each case has to be considered on its own facts. The observations made in this case leave no doubt that civil and criminal proceedings can continue simultaneously. 11. Another aspect which cannot be ignored in this case is that it is not a case where facts stated in the report under Section 173 of the Code do not disclose any offence against the petitioner-accused. Rather, after the report was submitted, the trial Magistrate had framed charge against the petitioner- accused. Therefore, no case has been made out for intervention of this Court for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner-accused. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.