JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J (Oral) :- Petitioners herein pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them by complainant Tulsi Ram trough a private complaint fled by him registered with learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hamirpur. as Criminal Complaint No. 263-1/95. 2. It appears. Tulsi Ram filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for the trial of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 463. 468. 420. 423 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the complainant in complaint was that he was allotted land measuring 6 kanals 7 Marias at Tikka Khagal, Mauja Jangal. Tehsil and District Hamirpur as landless and poor person pursuant to the Scheme framed under H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act. 1974. The mutation of the land allotted to him was sanctioned on 27th April. 1980. 4. Petitioners Pawan Kumar and Anil Kumar were negotiating with the wife of the complainant for the purchase of 4 kanals and 4 Marias of the land situate in the same village. The deal was struck for Rs.30.000-. The sale deed, of the land under negotitation. was executed by his wife on 28th July. 1994 in favour of Rakesh Kumar son of Muni Lal and Naresh Kumar son of Pawan Kumar son of Muni Lal (accused). According to the complainant, he had consented for the sale of the land of his wife. It is the case of the complainant that he was called by accused Pawan Kuamr and Rakesh Kumar to Hamirpur on 18th July. 1994 on the pretext that some formalities regarding the sale of the land of his wife were to be completed and he was required to give a "No Objection Certificate" for the sale of the land by his wife. On that day i.e. 18th July. 1994. Pawan Kumar. Rakesh Kumar and Muni Lal Puri obtained his thumb impression on few blank stamped papers near D.C. Office at Hamirpur. Similarly on that day at about 11.00 A.M. "few thumb impression of Smt. Suhri Devi wife of the complainant were also obtained at the same time near D.C. Office. Hamirpur. in a tea shop". Complainant returned back to Khagal in a Maruti Van driven by Anil Kumar. Similarly on that day at about 11.00 A.M. "few thumb impression of Smt. Suhri Devi wife of the complainant were also obtained at the same time near D.C. Office. Hamirpur. in a tea shop". Complainant returned back to Khagal in a Maruti Van driven by Anil Kumar. Complainant was paid Rs.30.000/-in the office of the Sub Registrar stating that complainant may receive the amount of Rs.30.000/- on behalf of his wife Shun Devi and the remaining amount of Rs.30.000/- will be paid after the mutation was sanctioned. On 28th July. 1994. accused Nos. 2 to 5: namely: Anil Kumar. Pawan Kumar. Rakesh and Muni Lal visited the house of the complainant. Complainant was not in his house. They misrepresented to Suhri Devi, wife of the complainant, that certain formalities which could not be completed on 18th July. 1994 were to be completed. On that pretext all of them took Suhri Devi to Hamirpur. Suhri Devi was paid Rs. 15.000/- by accused Muni Lal at her house and was told that remaining amount of Rs. 15.000/- would be paid to her after the completion of the formalities before the Sub Registrar. Hamirpur. According to the complainant, "she was made to accompany accused Nos.2 to 5 in a wide maruti Van they were having with them, despite her protest that her husband complainant was not at home". It further alleged that his wife wanted to take the Pradhan along with her but she was put off by accused No2. to 5 saying that there was no need of the Pradhan as the witnesses were available after payment of money in Tehsil Complex itself and they had already spoken to the Sub Registrar, accused No.9. named in the complaint to do the needful on payment of Rs. 10.000/- received by the Sub Registrar. She was taken to the office of the Sub Registrar" a sale deed was executed and Rs. 15.000/- as referred in para supra were also paid to her as sale consideration after due formalities of the sale". 5. It is the case of the complainant, on 1lth August. 1994 at about 8.00 A.M. accused Meena Kumari. Anil Kumar. Pawan Kumar Rakesh and Muni Lal came to village Khagal and proclaimed that complainant should vacate the house and land measuring 6 kanals 7 Marias as the same have been purchase by them. The complainant was shocked and surprised. 5. It is the case of the complainant, on 1lth August. 1994 at about 8.00 A.M. accused Meena Kumari. Anil Kumar. Pawan Kumar Rakesh and Muni Lal came to village Khagal and proclaimed that complainant should vacate the house and land measuring 6 kanals 7 Marias as the same have been purchase by them. The complainant was shocked and surprised. He immediately made inquiries from Tehsildar and Patwari Halqua and came to know that all the accused persons had Conspired and "has got a false and fabricated document prepared by was of sale deed in connivance with accused No. 1 to 8 from accused .Jo.9 at his instance". Accused No.9 the Sub Registrar, according to the complainant, ignored the entries in the remarks column of the Jamabandi to the effect that the allotted land could not be sold within 20 years of his allotment as well the instructions of the Revenue Department "by sanctioning the sale deed against the provisions of H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation). Act. 1974. as well the Scheme and Rules made there under". Complainant applied for the certified copy of the sale deed dated 18th July. 1994 and filed a Civil Suit No.210-94. Tulsi Ram v. Anil Kumar and others which is pending before the learned Sub Judge-(II). Hamirpur. 6. It is the further case of the complainant that accused Nos.6 to 8: namely: Milap Chand. Petition Writer scribe of the sale deed. Gurdev. Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. Matti Tihra. attesting witness to the sale deed and Baldev Singh. Numberdar. Gram Panchayat. Dhaned. also a marginal witness, abated the commission of "cheating and forging the complainant and remained silent spectators to this illegal sale of deed". 7. According to the complainant, all the accused conspired to cheat the complainant and obtained his thumb marks on blank stamped papers with the criminal intend to cheat the complainant and his wife by forging the sale deed though he and his wife never intended to dispose of his land which was allotted to him for earning his livelihood. It is the case of the complainant that his four sons, who live with him. had constructed a double storeyed pakka house on this land after spending huge amount after the allotment was made to him. It is the case of the complainant. Sub Registrar. Hamirpur. It is the case of the complainant that his four sons, who live with him. had constructed a double storeyed pakka house on this land after spending huge amount after the allotment was made to him. It is the case of the complainant. Sub Registrar. Hamirpur. Committed serious offences after entering into conspiracy with the other accused while registering the sale deed as Sub Registrar. 8. This complaint, it is important to note, was fled after more than one year after he admittedly discovered that he has been cheated by the accused. 9. The learned Trial Magistrate vide his orders dated 10.11.1997 passed the following orders: 10.11.1997 Present: Sh. Suresh Musafir. Advocate, with complainant in person. on bare perusal of complaint, oral preliminary as well as documentary evidence there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused Nos. 1 to 8 for an offence u/s 420.468 IPC read with Section 120-B 1PC and no cognizance is taken against accused No.9 as sanction sought by complainant is not brought on record . So let accuse Nos. 1 to 8 be summoned for 24.1.98. Sd/- Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur. 10. It may be see that the Sub Registrar, accused No.9 was not summoned by the learned trial Magistrate for want of sanction to prosecute him. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. Hamirpur. who dismissed the same vide his orders dated 6th September. 2001. The reason which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the revision petition was that the land/property sold by the complainant could not have been sold by him before the expiry of 20 years from the date of allotment of land to him which was allotted in the year 1976. He was. prima facie. of the view that from the sale deed it appears that only Kumari Meena. Gurdev. Baldev. Tulsi Ram accompanied with Milap Chand scribe of the sale deed to effect the sale of the land in contravention to the terms of allotment. 12. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur. learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Sandeep Kaushik. learned Assistant Advocate General also assisted the Court. 13. Leared counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the complainant, the deal to sell the land of Smt. Suhri Devi wife of the complainant was struck for Rs.30.000/-. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur. learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Sandeep Kaushik. learned Assistant Advocate General also assisted the Court. 13. Leared counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the complainant, the deal to sell the land of Smt. Suhri Devi wife of the complainant was struck for Rs.30.000/-. whereas admittedly wife of the complainant received Rs.60.000/- and if the land which was allotted to the complainant was not sold, how Rs.60.000/- were received by Suhri Devi without a murmur. It is the own case of the complainant that Le was paid Rs.30.000/- before the Sub Registrar on the pretext that these pertain to the sale of the land of Suhri Devi. It is also the case of the complainant that Rs. 15.000/- were received by Suhri Devi at her residence on 28th July. 1994 and another Rs. 15.000/-were received by her before the Sub Registrar. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the fact that this complaint was lodged more than one year after the alleged discovery of fraud shows that complaint is false. Mr. Thakur contends that so far accused Nos.6 to 8: namely Milap Chand. Petition Writer. Gurdev. Pradhan. Gram Panchayat and Baldev. Numberdar are concerned, there is no case made out against them. One is petition Writer who scribed the sale deed other two are attesting witnesses. Mr. Thakur contends that from the sale consideration Tulsi Ram has purchased land at Tikka Siwan on 21st July. 1994. Tulsi Ram had also filed a suit against Meena Kumari seeking declaration that he was owner in possession of the land subject matter of dispute i.e. the land which allotted to him. The prayer for interim injunction against Meena Kumari seeking to restrain her from interfering from possession of the complainant was rejected by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court though the possession of the house was permitted to be retained by the complainant. Complainant filed a revision against those orders in this Court which was dismissed on 28th July. 1999. In these circumstances, contends. Mr. Thakur. it is obvious that complaint is false and no cognizance ought to have been taken by the learned trial Magistrate, particularly, after 13 months of the filing of the suit by the complainant. Complainant filed a revision against those orders in this Court which was dismissed on 28th July. 1999. In these circumstances, contends. Mr. Thakur. it is obvious that complaint is false and no cognizance ought to have been taken by the learned trial Magistrate, particularly, after 13 months of the filing of the suit by the complainant. According to him delay in filing the complaint is not explained at all. 14. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand contends that the complainant could not have sold the land in dispute under the Rules and he never intended to sell this land. The sale deed was got executed by practicing fraud and deception. Learned counsel for the complainant also contends that this Court will not interfere in exercise of its decisional jurisdiction which is Himited and particularly when the learned trial Magistrate has found the prima facie case against the petitioners. 15. Mr. Thakur. relying upon Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E.Ltd & Ors.. 2000 (3) SCC 269 submits that this Court should not hesitate to quash the proceedings if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable. 16. It is now well settled that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers for quashing the criminal proceedings has to see whether continuation of criminal proceedings will be a total cause of the process of the Court. The Court must act with the circumspection be cautious and careful in quashing the criminal proceedings. 17. Mr. Thakur. strongly relied upon Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2000 (4) SCC 168 and G. Sugar Suri & Am. v. State of UP.& Ors.. 2000(2) SCC 636. 18. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma. the appellants agreed to sell their land to a cooperative housing society for a consideration of Rs. 16.00.000. The respondent paid part consideration of Rs. 11.00.000to the appellants by draft drawn in their favour. The appellants executed a registered sale deed in respect of the land subject matter of dispute in favour of the Society. Respondent No.2 was Secretary of the Society. 16.00.000. The respondent paid part consideration of Rs. 11.00.000to the appellants by draft drawn in their favour. The appellants executed a registered sale deed in respect of the land subject matter of dispute in favour of the Society. Respondent No.2 was Secretary of the Society. According to the appellants, it was only at the insistence of respondent No.2 that the appellants singed the sale deed as witnesses and has further safeguard them by executing a separate indemnity deed on the same day in which they undertook to indemnify any loss caused to the Society on account of any objection which may be raised by any co sharer against transfer of the land in future. The possession, according to the appellants, was delivered to the Society on the same day. On registration of the sale deed respondent No.2. the Secretary of the Society, handed over three cheque to the appellants in the amount of Rs.5.50.000. When the cheque were presented in the bank, the same were dishonored for want of sufficient funds in the account of the drawer. The appellants lodged a F.I.R. for offences punishable under Section 406. 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants also filed three suits for realisaton of the amount due to them. Respondent No.2. the Secretary of the Society, also filed complaint before the chief Judicial Magistrate against the appellants alleging commission of offences under Sections 420. 423. 469. 504and 120- B of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2 alleged that by conspiring together the appellants defrauded and cheated the Society and the complainant by giving false, concocted and wrongful information and assurance and thereby induced the complainant to enter into negotiations and also to advance them a heavy amount within ulterior design to acquire wrongful gain to themselves and for wrongful loss to the Society and the complainant. The appellants contended that FIR was filed as the counterblast to the criminal case and the civil suits filed by them against Respondent No.2. The appellants, therefore, filed a petition before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants. High Court declined to quash the proceedings. The appellants contended that FIR was filed as the counterblast to the criminal case and the civil suits filed by them against Respondent No.2. The appellants, therefore, filed a petition before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants. High Court declined to quash the proceedings. It is in this back-ground that the Apex Court observed that the reading of the complaint in its entirety and accepting the allegations the ingredients of intentional deception on the pan of the accused at the beginning of the negotiations for the transaction have neither been expressly stated nor indirectly suggested in the complaint of that respondent No.2. The allegation against the appellants was that they did not disclose to him that one of their brothers had filed a petition/suit which was pending. The requirement that the information was not disclosed by the appellants intentionally in order to make respondent No.2 to part with the property was not alleged either expressly or impliedly in the complaint and therefore taking the averments made in the complaint at its face value the offences of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the like under Sections 418 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out. in such a situation, observed the Apex Court. It was held that criminal proceedings against the accused were liable to be quashed as same would amount to "abuse" of the process of the Court. ? 19. In G. Sagar Suri and Another a General Manager of a Finance Company, lodged a report with the police against seven persons including the two appellants alleging that they as Directors of an Automobile Company had taken a short-term loan of Rs.50 lakhs from the Finance Company but the cheque drawn by them by way of repayment of the loan on presentation were dis honoured by the bank for want of sufficient funds in their accounts. Police charged the two appellants and their family members for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the appellants were not found to be Directors of the said Automobile Company. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, only an omnibus statement was made to the effect that the first appellant with dishonest intention and misrepresentation got the loan, no particulars of misrepresentation were detailed. During investigation, the appellants were not found to be Directors of the said Automobile Company. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, only an omnibus statement was made to the effect that the first appellant with dishonest intention and misrepresentation got the loan, no particulars of misrepresentation were detailed. It was not stated how the Finance Company was duped and what role was played by the appellants and the other accused in the alleged offence and why charge sheet was filed against the appellants and their family members leaving out other Directors of the Automobile Company. The charge-sheet filed with the police did not disclose that the finance Company had also filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was pending at the time of the filing of the First Information Report. In these circumstances, the appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The application was dismissed by the High Court. The Apex Court in appeal observed that the entire attempt of the complainant was. evidently, to rope in all the members of the family particularly the appellants who are the parities of the Managing Director of the Automobile Company without regard to their role or participation in the alleged offences with the sole purpose of getting the loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating and tyrannising the appellants with criminal prosecution. The Apex Court also took note of the fact that Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending against the appellants and other accused and if the offence under Section 138 is proved against them then they will suffer the consequences. The Apex Court observed that there was no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the. appellants under Sections 406.420 of the Indian Penal Code. Such an act on the pan of the complainant was an abuse of the process of law. The prosecution against the appellants for these offences was accordingly quashed. 20. So far the question of jurisdiction of the High Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it is no longer rest integrate. It is true that the jurisdiction under Section -82 of the Code has to be exercised by a High Court with great care, caution and circumspection. 20. So far the question of jurisdiction of the High Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it is no longer rest integrate. It is true that the jurisdiction under Section -82 of the Code has to be exercised by a High Court with great care, caution and circumspection. At the same time, as observed in State of Karnataka v. L. Miniswamy 1977 (2) SCC 699. the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to be continued would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the ends of justice require the quashing of proceedings. 21. Relying upon Trisuns Chemical Industry- v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.. 1999 (8) SCC 686. learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urges that tendency of civil proceedings in respect of the same incident will not be an impediment in taking out criminal proceedings. In Trisuns Chemical Industry the Apex Court observed, "that quashing of FIR or a complaint in exercise of inherent owners of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions. Merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit". It was observed that Investigating Agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own and pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases. 22. To similar effect of the observation in Maratt Rubber Ltd. v. J.K. Marattukalam 2000(9) SCC 547. it was observed that mere pendency of a civil suit will not be a bar to institute or proceed with the criminal complaint. 23. In the present case the processes have been issued against the petitioners, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, for the offences punishable under Sections 420. 468 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have the right to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the complainant and thereafter to show to the Court that no case for the purpose of charge is made out against the petitioners. All the grounds taken up in this petition, needless to say. shall be available to the petitioners to be raised before the learned trial Magistrate. The petitioners have the right to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the complainant and thereafter to show to the Court that no case for the purpose of charge is made out against the petitioners. All the grounds taken up in this petition, needless to say. shall be available to the petitioners to be raised before the learned trial Magistrate. 24. Mr. Thakur. learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that petitioners have unnecessarily been dragged to the Court as accused and petitioner No.5 Muni Lal is a sick person and unable to attend the Court. He further submits that virtually there is no allegation against petitioners No.6.7 and 8 who happened to be petition Writer and Attesting witnesses. 25. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate to direct that learned trial Magistrate shall not insist for the personal presence of respondents Nos.5 to 8 on each date of hearing, if an appropriate application is filed for their exemption from personal presence. Such an application, if filed, shall be allowed by the learned trial Magistrate atl east till the consideration of charge. It will also be open to the other petitioners to move appropriate application for their exemption, which shall be considered at its own merits by the learned trial Magistrate. 26. The present petition is rejected at this stage. It will be open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds which may be available to them for their discharge, in accordance with law. The liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court again if need so arises. 27. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 8th January. 2002. -