Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 49 (MP)

Harinder Kaur Chukkal v. Gurubaksh Singh Dhanoya

2005-01-10

S.L.JAIN

body2005
JUDGMENT Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth, the 'Code'), the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.598/2002 for the offences punishable under section 419, 420, 120B and 468 of the IPC. The facts leading to the filing of the petition pithily narrated are as follows: (i) Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a complaint before JMFC, Jabalpur stating, inter alia, that they are brothers and permanent residents of Canada. They along with their brother, Ratan Singh had purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 43/1, measuring 0.55 hectares situated in village Bheeta, Tahsil Patan, District Jabalpur by registered sale deed in which they have equal shares. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner is the sister-in-law of Ratan Singh Dhanoya. Ratan Singh executed power of attorney in favour of petitioner. Under this power of attorney the petitioner was not authorised to assign, lease or rent the property. (ii) On 15.9.1998, the aforesaid land of complainants was sold by the petitioner to Thakur Surendra Singh, the respondent No.5. The petitioner No.1 purportedly acted in the right of holder of power of attorney. At the time of execution of the sale deed, respondents No. 1 and 2-complainants were not present in India nor they appeared before Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur to execute the sale-deed. Two other persons impersonated the complainants before the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur and signed the sale deed with conspiracy of petitioner and other accused, namely, Parvinder Singh, son of petitioner, Nanhelal and Thakur Surendra Singh. The impersonators were identified by Parvinder Singh and Nanhe. The signatures on the sale deed dated 15.9.1998 purporting to be those of the complainants are not of the complainants. The complainants were not in India on this date much less at Jabalpur and they could have never executed the sale deeds. (iii) It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had taken the advantage of her relations with the complainants and with the conspiracy of all other accused cheated them. She had secured two imposters who were identified by her son and Nanhelal. The signatures of the complainants on sale deed were forged and thus the petitioner committed the offences punishable under sections 419,420,463 and 120B of the IPC. Statements of complainant No. 1 and the witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 of the Code. She had secured two imposters who were identified by her son and Nanhelal. The signatures of the complainants on sale deed were forged and thus the petitioner committed the offences punishable under sections 419,420,463 and 120B of the IPC. Statements of complainant No. 1 and the witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 of the Code. On the directions of the Court an enquiry was also made by the police. On the basis of the material on record, JMFC, Jabalpur, vide order dated 1.7.2002 registered the complaint for the offences punishable under sections 120, 419, 420 and 468 of the IPC. I have heard Shri S.K. Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Shri Hamid Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2, and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no evidence to suggest that any representation has been made by the petitioner at any point of time so as to attract the provisions under section 420 and 120 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Sudehara v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Allahabad, 818 and Bhagatram v. M/s. A.P. Foam Pvt. Ltd., 1999 (II) MPWN SN 74, also submitted that where a case is of civil nature and the civil suit is already pending, the complaint is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the complainants with doubtful claims initiated criminal proceeding in the hope that the petitioner will satisfy their claim rather than face a criminal charge. The use of criminal Courts for enforcing a civil claim is highly improper and it may almost amount to blackmail. The complaints have chosen the Criminal Court simply because it is cheaper. There is no ground for making a criminal charge against the petitioner against whom civil suit is pending. From the facts alleged in the complaint and on perusal of the statements of the witnesses and documents it is clear that petitioner was one of the executants of the sale deed and two other persons are joint signatories along with her. These two persons signed the sale deed representing them as Sardar Jeet Singh and Gurubaksh Singh. Both the complainants were known to the petitioner. These two persons signed the sale deed representing them as Sardar Jeet Singh and Gurubaksh Singh. Both the complainants were known to the petitioner. Had there been no intention of cheating or forgery the petitioner could have informed the Registrar that the other two signatories of the sale deed are not Sardar Jeet Singh and Gurubaksh Singh. From the statement of Gurubaksh Singh it is crystal clear that on the relevant date Sardar Jeet Singh and Sardar Gurubaksh Singh were in Canada and were not in India, much less at Jabalpur. It is also clear that one of the persons, who identified the impersonators as Sardar Jeet Singh and Sardar Gurubaksh Singh was none but son of the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner acted bona fide. From the evidence it is clear that two persons represented themselves as Sardar Jeet Singh and Gurubaksh Singh and executed the sale deed. This was to the knowledge of the petitioner. She is also a party to the execution of the document. The petitioner had knowledge that by her act she was going to cause wrongful loss to complainant. The petitioner made a statement to the Sub-Registrar which she knew to be false. Apparently, her intention was dishonest or fraudulent. In any case, the petitioner concealed the facts dishonestly. The deliberate and dishonest concealment will amount to deception. The petitioner knowing that she had no right to sell the property and also knowing that the other two executants of the sale deed are impersonators, executed the sale deed and received consideration. It is also clear from the evidence that the petitioner made a false document with intent to cause damage to the complainants and with intention to commit fraud or with the knowledge that fraud may be committed. From the material on record, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner committed forgery for the purpose of cheating. In any case it cannot be said that the petitioner committed no offence whatsoever. Much stress was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainants also filed a civil suit against the accused persons and the suit has been dismissed. So far as the dismissal of the suit is concerned, it is alleged at the Bar that the appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dismissing the suit is pending and the matter is sub-judice. So far as the dismissal of the suit is concerned, it is alleged at the Bar that the appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dismissing the suit is pending and the matter is sub-judice. Even otherwise the existence of civil remedy is no bar to trial for an offence under section 420 of the IPC. A person who is deprived of his property can file a suit for recovery of the possession of the property and also proceed against wrong doer for cheating and forgery. Mere pendency of civil suit is no ground to bar the proceedings in criminal Court in respect of cheating or forgery. Both the proceedings can continue simultaneously. Therefore, the existence of civil remedy or decision of Civil Court against which an appeal is pending is no bar to a trial and on this ground also the proceedings cannot be quashed. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.