Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1199 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh v. State Of Haryana

2002-11-13

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Joginder Singh, Tara singh, Tarlok Singh and Jarnail Singh, petitioners-accused seek quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 3.5.1989 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Naraingarh, District Ambala. 2. The present case came to be registered on the report made by Babu Singh son of Ram Singh. According to his version Malak Chand, Sheela Wati and Tarawati were the allottee of land measuring 4 Kanals I1 Marlas bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 97/128 and Mustil No. 48//3/6, 18, K3-11-M-8K situated in Village Korwa Khurd, P.O. Naraingarh. Malak Chand, Sheela Wati and Tarawati had appointed Babu Singh as their general power of attorney in respect of this land. Babu Singh and his brother-Puran Singh had been in cultivating possession of the above mentioned land for the last more than 39 years. The said land was sold by Tara Singh son of Mahnga Singh to Joginder Singh on 8.4.1988 in lieu of Rs. 40,000/- on the basis of forged general power of attorney with the active connivance and conspiracy of Tarlok Singh, Lambardar, Jarnail Singh, Alakh Ram, Patwari and Ashok Malim, Naib Tehsildar. At the time of execution of sale deed Tara Singh projected himself as the owner of the land in question. When the complainant came to know`about execution of the bogus sale deed on the basis of general power of attorney, the resent report was lodged. Aggrieved by the lodging of report, the present petition has beeen filed in this Court. 3. While seeking the quashing of the FIR in question, it had been strenuously present by the counsel representing the petitioners that Babu Singh had already filed civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (senior division) at Ambala Cantt, wherein validity of the sale deed had been challenged and continuance of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Additionally, it was pointed out by him that the civil suit filed by the complainant had been dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Additionally, it was pointed out by him that the civil suit filed by the complainant had been dismissed as withdrawn. 4. While opposing the submissions made, the State counsel had pointedly urged before me that one Dilbagh Singh, co-accused had impersonated himself as Malak Chand and Dalip Kaur, accused, who had impersonated as Sheela Wati is the wife of Tarlok Singh, petitioner No.3 and Manjit Kaur, who had impersonated herself as Tarawati is the wife of Joginder Singh, petitioner No. 1, who had prepared the forged power of attorney dated 25.3.1988 and presented the same before the Sub-Registrar, Naraingarh and thus involvement of the petitioners-accused in the commission of crime in respect of the aforesaid offences is clearly made but from the record. Further it was submitted by him that initiation and termination of the civil proceedings does not per se bring end to the criminal proceedings. He made reference to the case Jit Singh v. The State of Punjab, 2002 (1) RCR (Cr.) 464 : [2002(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 609 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 5. In the cited case, the accused had forged the power of attorney and had sold his property on that basis to the petitioners. Thereafter, the prosecution was launched against the accused and the petitioners. A plea was taken on behalf of the petitioners that they were the bona fide purchasers. It was concluded that this plea had to be taken by them in the civil court. It was also laid done that despite the fact that legality of the power of attorney was pending in the civil court, the criminal proceedings can continue and the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners to stay the criminal proceedings was negated. 6. The parameters with regard to the quashing of the FIR are well settled that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court so as to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. While exercising the powers so vested, it has to be kept in mind that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be scuttled at the initial stage of investigation unless it can be spelled out that no case is made out at all. Therefore, quashing of the criminal proceedings has to be done sparingly and with circumspection. 7. While exercising the powers so vested, it has to be kept in mind that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be scuttled at the initial stage of investigation unless it can be spelled out that no case is made out at all. Therefore, quashing of the criminal proceedings has to be done sparingly and with circumspection. 7. In the latest pronouncement in K.G. Prem Shankar v. Inspector of Police and another, 2002 AIR SCW 3930 : (2002(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 940 (SC)], it has been laid down that where the complainant in a criminal case had also filed a civil suit for damages against the accused and the trial Court dismissed the suit, the criminal prosecution would not be required to be dropped on that ground. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides as to what extent judgments given in the previous proceedings are relevant is provided and, therefore, it would be against the law if it is held that since judgment and decree has been passed in a civil suit, the criminal proceedings are required to be dropped if the suit is decided against the plaintiff, who is the complainant in the criminal proceedings. The ratio of the above mentioned case would also apply to the present case. 8. In the present case from the facts stated in the report lodged by the complainant, it cannot be said that no case at all is made out against the petitioner-accused in respect of the offences lodged against them. Rather, after investigation, the Police had submitted the report against the accused. Those proceedings have not been challenged in the present petition. Thus, the circumstances of the case do not warrant any interfrence of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code. The petition is accordingly dismissed.