Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 634 (PNJ)

Ashwani Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2002-07-03

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two above stated petitions as the above mentioned petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 411 dated 31.7.1993 registered under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B, I.P.C. with Police Station City, Gurgaon and the subsequent proceedings taken therein which are pending against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. 2. In order to decide the controversy raised in these petitions, essential facts have to be noticed briefly. Shri I.D. Kaushik, Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon addressed communication bearing No. 12153 dated 19.7.1993 to the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon stating therein that three sale deeds No. 3751 dated 7.8.1990 in respect of land measuring 50 sq. yards for consideration of Rs. 10,000/-, No. 3752 dated 7.8.1990 in respect of land measuring 702 sq. yards for consideration of Rs. 1,42,500/- and No. 3787 dated 8.8.1990 in respect of land measuring 307 sq. yards for consideration of Rs. 61,500/-, which formed part of land fully described in Para 2(i) to (iii) of the petitions in Village Jharsa, had been registered by Sanjay Rao, Tehsildar, Gurgaon after the death of Sultan Singh alias Partap Singh son of Daulat Ram resident of Jharsa and the said Tehsildar along with Ram Niwas, Advocate, Gurgaon, Ashwani Kumar, Deed Writer, Yogesh Kaushik employed in HUDA, Gurgaon and Vinod Sharma resident of Pataudi had committed fraud in this regard and accordingly it was prayed that case be registered against them. On the basis of report received case bearing FIR No. 411 dated 31.7.1993 was registered with Police Station City, Gurgaon. After completion of the investigation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) had been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon on 31.5.1994. It is thereafter the present petitions have been filed by both the petitioners. 3. The petitions have been resisted from the side of the respondent on the ground that the petitioners had colluded with the other accused in preparing false documents and during the course of investigation, it was spelled out from the statements of the witnesses recorded that factually Sultan Singh alias Partap Singh had died before these documents were executed and were registered by Sanjay Rao, Tehsildar, Gurgaon. 4. I have heard counsel for both the sides at length. 5. 4. I have heard counsel for both the sides at length. 5. Quashing of the FIR in question has been sought by the petitioners primarily on the ground that no role has been specifically attributed to petitioner Yogesh Kaushik, who is admittedly employed with HUDA at Gurgaon and Ashwani Kumar, petitioner being Deed Writer was duty bound to scribe the sale deeds in question at the instance of vendors and vendees which were duly identified by the attesting witnesses and thus it cannot be said that he knew that Sultan Singh alias Partap Singh was factually dead on the date of execution of the sale deeds. Additionally, it has been stated that the FIR in question came to be registered after three years of the incident and there being unexplained delay in this regard, the lodging of the report under the circumstances tantamounts to the abuse of process of law. 6. Opposing the submissions made, it has been strenuously urged by the State counsel that after the fraud committed by Sanjay Rao, Tehsildar, Gurgaon in connivance with the petitioners and other named accused came to the notice of the authorities the matter was enquired into and it was thereafter the present case came to be registered. It was highlighted by him that investigation conducted by the Police reveals the involvement of the petitioners-accused in the commission of the crime and thus the petitioners have no right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. 7. The factual position which emerges from the respective stands taken by the parties is that two sale deeds bearing No. 3751 and 3752 scribed by Ashwani Kumar, Deed Writer came to be registered on 7.8.1990 and the third sale deed bearing No. 3787 scribed by petitioner Ashwani Kumar came to be registered on 8.8.1990 by the Sub Registrar. It is not disputed by the parties before me that on the date of registration of the sale deeds Sultan Singh alias Partap Singh was dead. Smt. Saroj Sharma daughter of Pandit Krishan Kumar resident of Rohtak was the vendee in sale deed No. 3751 dated 7.8.1990 which had been witnessed by Ram Niwas, Advocate, Gurgaon, Vinod Sharma s/o Om Parkash resident of Pataudi. Smt. Saroj Sharma daughter of Pandit Krishan Kumar resident of Rohtak was the vendee in sale deed No. 3751 dated 7.8.1990 which had been witnessed by Ram Niwas, Advocate, Gurgaon, Vinod Sharma s/o Om Parkash resident of Pataudi. Smt. Veena Moudgil daughter of Om Parkash, resident of Pataudi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon are the vendees in sale deed No. 3752 dated 7.8.1990 and this sale deed was also witnessed by Ram Niwas, Advocate, Gurgaon, Manjit Singh s/o Khapal Singh r/o 384/17, Housing Board Colony, Gurgaon. Lilawati wife of Ram Chander r/o Village Sisana, Tehsil and District Sonepat and Smt. Shashi Kanta wife of Dinesh Kumar r/o Hira Nagar, Gurgaon are the vendees in sale deed No. 3787 dated 8.8.1990 which was witnessed by Ram Niwas, Advocate, Gurgaon, Vinod Sharma s/o Om Parkash resident of Pataudi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. According to the stand of the prosecution the police statement of Kaptan Singh was recorded who had given detailed account with regard to the conspiracy and collusion of the accused in order to prepare the forged sale deeds. The copy of the statement has been annexed as Annexure-R.1 with the reply filed by the State. He had clearly stated that his father had expired on 28.7.1990 at Friends Medical Centre, F-I, Kalandri Ring Road, Delhi. Finding the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused to be substantiated in the investigation both of them had been challaned and sent up for trial. Thus, it cannot be said that no case at all is disclosed in respect of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B, I.P.C. against the petitioners-accused. 8. The position of law with regard to intervention of this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code is well settled. The powers vested to quash the proceedings can be exercised in appropriate cases in order to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At this stage the Court is not required to make an enquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. At this stage the Court is not required to make an enquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. Rather, the well accepted principle is that if upon the admitted facts and documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and with weighing or sifting of evidence no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be quashed. While applying the above parameteres the observations made in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others, JT 1999(2) SC 112 need to be noticed. It was laid down in the above mentioned case that "the High Court and the Magistrate are not supposed to adopt strictly hyper-technical approach and sieve the complaint through cullender of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients of offences with which the accused is charged. Such an endeavour was justified during trial, but not during the initial stage." 9. Coming to the facts of the present case as noticed above, the petitioners had been named in the report lodged by I.D. Kaushik, Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon. The police statement recorded by the prosecution under Section 161 of the Code disclosed the offence alleged against the petitioners. 10. Consequently, I find no merit in the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners and for that reason both the petitions are dismissed.