Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 964 (PNJ)

Jangir Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-23

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners Jangir Singh and Amarjeet Singh for quashing of the FIR No. 61 dated April 7, 1997 filed under Sections 420/467 and 468 IPC registered at Police Station Barnala. A copy of the aforesaid FIR has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition. 2. Sukhdev Singh, who ultimately got himself impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the present petition had submitted an application to the Director General of Police, Chandigarh lodging a complaint against Jangir Singh and Amarjeet Singh (Present petitioners). In the aforesaid application, it was submitted that Sukhdev Singh was owner of a house constructed on the land measuring 1 Kanala 13 marlas. Sukhdev Singh stated that he had constructed the building on that land by spending a huge amount. It was alleged that Jangir Singh and Amarjeet Singh had illegally got into the possession and in order to mis- appropriate that property, had forged the signatures of the father of Sukhdev Singh namely Naginder Singh. It was maintained by Sukhdev Singh that signatures of Naginder Singh were forged. On the basis of these allegations of cheating and forgery, FIR No. 61 as aforesaid was registered. 3. The parties are near relations, Jangir Singh petitioner No. 1 is son of Khehar Singh, whereas petitioner No. 2 Amarjeet Singh is son of Jangir Singh. Similarly, Sukhdev Singh and Ajmer Singh - respondents No. 2 and 3 are sons of Naginder Singh, who is son of Khehar Singh. 4. A civil suit, being suit No. 20 dated January 18, 1991 was filed by Sukhdev Singh, Ajmer Singh and others against Jangir Singh and Balbir Singh seeking the possession by way of partition. The aforesaid suit pertains to the property which is subject matter of the present FIR. Ultimately vide judgment and decree dated April 3, 1999, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barnala, dismissed the aforesaid civil suit of the said Sukhdev Singh and others. A positive finding was recorded that the documents Exhibit D1 and D2, whereby Balbir Singh and Naginder Singh had given their share to Jangir Singh through a family settledment were duly proved to have been executed and the execution of the aforesaid documents has been proved beyond any doubt. After coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the claim made by Sukhdev Singh and others was dismissed. 5. Sh. After coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the claim made by Sukhdev Singh and others was dismissed. 5. Sh. B.S. Walia, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has also informed this Court that the parties have compromised. Thus the judgment dated April 3, 1999 has since attained finality. On the strength of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Civil Court, Sh. S.S. Salar, learned counsel fur the petitioners submitted that no useful purpose would be served to continue with the criminal proceedings since the parties have mutually settled the matter and they are near relations. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that contention raised by Sh. S.S. Salar deserves to succeed. Since the parties have settled the matter and respondents No. 2 and 3 themselves have withdrawn their appeal, thereby giving finality to the judgment of the Civil Court, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the criminal proceedings and the FIR are allowed to remain alive. 7. Sh. Salar has placed reliance upon the rulings contained in Rajinder v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 283, Manjit Kaur v. Smt. Surinder Kaur, 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 301, Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 237 and decision dated August 2, 2002 rendered by this Court in Crl.M. No. 31961-M of 1998 Parvinder Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh and another to support his contentions that in such a situation the criminal proceedings and the FIR are liable to be quashed. Sh. B.S. Walia has no objection, if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed by this Court. Thus on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down in the above said authorities, I quash the FIR No. 61 dated April 7, 1997 registered at Police Station Barnala under Sections 420/467 and 468 IPC and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, against the present petitioners. Petition allowed.