Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1204 (PNJ)

Tarlok Singh v. State Of Haryana

2002-11-13

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Tarlok Singh, Kuldip Singh, Joginder Singh, Lambardar and Tara Singh, petitioners-accused seek quashing of FIR No. 167 dated 20.10.1989 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. 2. The circumstances under which the present case came to be registered need to be noticed briefly. Labh Singh father of the Gurjit Singh, resident No.2- complainant was the owner of the land measuring 38 Kanals 16 Marlas comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 315/376-377 and 378, Khasra No. 35//20 (7-0), 351/10 (7-0), 11 (7-2), 12 (7-0), 35/812 (2-14), 7/ (8-0) situated in Village Kurwa Khurd, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Said Labh Singh died on 13.6.1970. The complainant and his brother, namely, Manjit Singh, Man Singh, Gurcharan Singh, mother-Smt. Ishar Kaur, sister-Smt. Igbal Kaur inherited the said property as his legal heirs. Accused, who are mischievous type of persons entered into a conspiracy as a result of which Kuldip Singh, petitioner- accused posed himself to be general attorney of Labh Singh, deceased and executed sale dated on 30.10.1987 in favour of Tarlok Singh, accused No. 1 and got the same registered with the Sub-Registrar, Naraingarh which was attested by Joginder Singh and Tara Singh, accused. When the complainant came to know about the above stated facts, he lodged the present complaint in the Court which was sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) to the Police Station for registration of case. Hence the present petition. 3. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, written reply had been filed by respondent No. 1. It has been stated therein that after investigation of the case against the petitioners-accused, police report under Section 173 of the Code had been filed in Court. Further proceedings are held up because of the stay order granted by this Court. 4. I heard counsel for the petitioners as well as State counsel at length. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while seeking quashing of the FIR in question, mainly urged before me that as the validity of power of attorney and sale deed dated 30.10.1987 had been challenged in the Civil Court by the complainant, criminal proceedings cannot simultaneously be taken against the petitioners. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while seeking quashing of the FIR in question, mainly urged before me that as the validity of power of attorney and sale deed dated 30.10.1987 had been challenged in the Civil Court by the complainant, criminal proceedings cannot simultaneously be taken against the petitioners. 6. Opposing the submissions made, it had been submitted by the State counsel that the allegations levelled in the complaint had been substantiated during the investigation of the case and it was thereafter the Police report had been filed under Section 173 of the Code in Court. According to the investigation carried by the Police, the allegation levelled in the complaint had been found to be substantiated and the civil suit filed by the complainant is no ground to quash the FIR in question. In support of the stand taken, he placed reliance on Jit Singh v. The State. of Punjab, 2002 (1) RCR (Cr.) 464 [2002(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 609 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 7. 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 bonafide purchasers. It was concluded that this plea had to be taken by them in the civil court. It was also laid down 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 9. In the latest pronouncement in K.G. Prem Shanker 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 India Evidence Act, 1872 provides as to what extent judgment given in the previous proceedings are relevant. 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. 10. 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 petitioners-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 interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.