Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 389 (PNJ)

Sawran Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-04-10

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Swaran Singh, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 13 dated 19.1.1998 (Annexure-P.1) registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Sadar Ferozepur. 2. In order to decide the controversy raised in the petition, the essential facts need to be stated. Chhinder Kaur, complainant addressed a communication to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, wherein she mentioned that she had already given application dated 13.5.1991 against accused Swaran Singh, Sarwan Singh alias Bittu, Balkar Singh, Bagicha Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur stating therein that they had killed her father, Piara singh, on the night intervening 10/11.5.1991. Thereafter, enquiry was done on that application but subsequently that application was ordered to be filed because it was stated that his father had died on account of illness. Despite the fact that death of Piara Singh had taken place on 10/11.5.1991, the above named accused persons submitted wrong affidavits by stating that he had died on 1.9.1991 and got recorded this fact in the death and birth register. These circumstances clearly reveal that the accused had fabricated the Will of her father in order to grab his property. 3. Challenge to the above mentioned FIR has been made on behalf of the petitioner. Chhinder Kaur, complainant is the aunt of the petitioner. Since long she had been married with Bhag Singh. Piara Singh, grand-father of the petitioner resided with his family. As he was looked after by the petitioner and his family members, out of love and affection for them he had executed a Will on 16.5.1991 in their favour. Subsequently, he expired on 1.9.1991. The complainant wanted to get share out of the property of her father and when she did not succeed in this regard, she filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioner and other accused had killed Piara Singh on the night intervening 10/11.5.1991 and thereafter prepared a false and fabricated Will and got it registered by way of impersonation by putting some fictitious person as Piara Singh before the Sub Registrar. The accusations made in the complaint were not substantiated by the complainant and for that reason complaint was dismissed and the accused were discharged by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur as per order dated 28.2.1998 (Annexure-P.2). It is thereafter that the present report was lodged which was wholly impermissible under the law because the petitioner- accused cannot be made to face prosecution all over again with regard to the same set of allegations in support of which evidence was led on behalf of the complainant and the offences alleged against them were found to have been unsubstantiated. Under these circumstances, the quashing of the aforesaid FIR has been sought. 4. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, the State of Punjab in its written reply has refuted the stand of the petitioner and justified the registration of the FIR in question against him as well as other accused. It was further stated by counsel for the respondent No. 1 that during the investigation of the case accusation against Swaran Singh, Sarwan Singh alias Bittu, Balkar Singh and Vijay Kumar, Lambardar, who was an attesting witness of the Will in question have been found to be substantiated and challan had been prepared which could not be put in Court because of the stay granted by this Court. 5. No reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel at length. 7. There is factually no dispute between the parties. Rather, it is common case of the parties that Chhinder Kaur, complainant had moved an application regarding the fabrication of the Will by the petitioner and other accused which matter was enquired into as is evident from the report dated 11.10.1991 (Annexure-P.3) of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur which was addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Internal Vigilance Cell, Punjab, Chandigarh. His findings in this regard are as under :- "Regarding the above stated application, the enquiry was got conducted from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. The enquiry was conduced from the applicant, from Bagicha Singh and from the Gram Panchayat. It was found that the applicant and Bagicha Singh are brother sister. Their father was an old person, and was ill from a long time and was being treated from Ferozepur. He died because of illness. No one has pressed his throat. The enquiry was conduced from the applicant, from Bagicha Singh and from the Gram Panchayat. It was found that the applicant and Bagicha Singh are brother sister. Their father was an old person, and was ill from a long time and was being treated from Ferozepur. He died because of illness. No one has pressed his throat. The motive of applications is that the applicant want to get the share of property from her brother. There is no truth in the application." 8. Dissatisfied with the above report, complaint dated 7.7.1992 was filed by the complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur. In support of the allegations made complainant examined oral as well as documentary evidence. The reasons which prevailed upon the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur for finding no merit in the accusation made against the petitioners-accused are contained in para 4 of the order which reads as under :- "The complainant has totally concocted the version in the complaint. The date of death of her father is disputed. She has alleged the death of her father on the intervening night of 10/11.5.1991. She has alleged that her father was murdered by her brother. She herself produced the death certificate of her father as Exh. D1 which shows the date of death as 1.9.91. Bagicha Singh is not accused in this case. She has raised the allegation in the complaint that her brother in connivance with the other witnesses fabricated the Will. Her father had already expired prior to the date of Will. The complainant has failed to disprove the will. It is a registered will. Admittedly mutation has already been sanctioned on the basis of will. The complainant has failed to prove any application given to the police authorities. The complainant has totally fabricated the version of her arrival in the cremation ground. There is no evidence of cheating of forgery of the alleged will. The complaint was filed on 7.7.92 whereas the occurrence is alleged to be May, 1991. The complainant has failed to explain the delay. Both the witnesses are discrepant in telling the time of murder and their arrival in the cremation ground. The will has not been challenged before the Civil court. She even did not know if will is registered or unregistered. The evidence on record is not sufficient to warrant conviction if goes unrebutted. The complainant has failed to explain the delay. Both the witnesses are discrepant in telling the time of murder and their arrival in the cremation ground. The will has not been challenged before the Civil court. She even did not know if will is registered or unregistered. The evidence on record is not sufficient to warrant conviction if goes unrebutted. There is no ground to proceed against the accused or to frame any charge." 9. During the course of arguments, no meaningful arguments were addressed by the State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant to dislodge the finding of the learned Magistrate. Rather, it is apparent that complainant has filed the death certificate Ex. D.1 during the course of evidence which indicated that Piara Singh had died on 1.9.1991. While the Will in question was executed on 16.5.1991 and was registered by the Sub Registrar on that day so to say when Piara Singh was alive when he was identified by Vijay Kumar, Lambardar and Nagar Singh, Lambardar. Piara Singh died subsequent to the execution of the will. This fact completely destroys the very foundation of the case set up by the complainant. It is not disputed on behalf of the complainant that the order dated 28.2.1998 was not challenged and consequently the findings recorded therein have attained finality. No doubt provisions of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable because in this case the accused had been discharged and it has not resulted in acquittal or sentence of the accused. However, in the present case it is clear from the report lodged that factually decision of dismissal of the complaint had been suppressed by the complainant. 10. The only allegation spelled out against the petitioner-accused is that he is the beneficiary of the will executed by Piara Singh. The complainant even failed to prove that Piara Singh was dead on the day when will dated 16.5.1991 was registered by the Sub Registrar. That being so it cannot be said that the petitioner and other accused who are the beneficiaries under the will had produced somebody else to impersonate Piara Singh at the time when will in question was registered. This situation negates the stand of the complainant completely. 11. That being so it cannot be said that the petitioner and other accused who are the beneficiaries under the will had produced somebody else to impersonate Piara Singh at the time when will in question was registered. This situation negates the stand of the complainant completely. 11. It is not a case that any fresh material has become available with the complainant after the dismissal of the complaint on 28.2.1998 so as to justify her to lodge the report with the Police. Rather, during the course of arguments counsel representing the complainant was candid enough to admit that she has no other evidence whatsoever except the evidence which had been produced during the trial of the complaint case. It is clear from the report lodged that reference had been made to the affidavits filed by the accused. The date of the affidavits filed by each of the accused had not been stated. Only vague allegations have been made by the complainant in the report lodged. 12. By now it is well settled that this Court can quash the proceedings where it is spelled out that the person lodging the report has misused the process of the law, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There cannot be a better case than the present one wherein the circumstances clearly show that the complainant had misused the process of law as the facts stated in the report do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner-accused. The Court while considering this aspect cannot ignore that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate the allegations levelled in the complaint. The petitioner-accused cannot be made to suffer under the treat of the report lodged by the complainant. 13. The totality of circumstances on record warrant a conclusion that these do not prima facie make out any case against the petitioner-accused. Consequently, the FIR lodged against the petitioner-accused is quashed.