Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 119 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. Swaranjit Kaur

2010-01-07

GURDEV SINGH

body2010
Judgment GURDEV SINGH, J. 1. This petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Om Parkash, Jaibir Singh and Rajbir Singh, petitioners, for quashing of criminal complaint No.17 of 2005 titled as swaranjir Kaur vs. Om parkash and others under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1), the summoning order dated 7.3.2005 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings taken in that complaint on the ground that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any criminal offence by them and the alleged dispute between them and complainant-respondent No.1 admittedly and undeniably a civil dispute and that this complaint is an abuse of the process of law. 2. According to the petitioners, the complainant is a close relation of Shri Baljeet Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, being his mother-in-law. As per her allegations, petitioners No.1 and 2 had taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from her and mortgaged their land measuring 7 Kanals-19 marlas with possession vide mortgage deed dated 12.4.2004 and as per the terms and conditions of that mortgage deed, they were to repay the mortgage money by 30.11.2004 and in case of their failure to do so, they were bound to execute a registered sale deed regarding the said land in her favour. It has also been alleged in the complaint that they could not repay the mortgage money and refused to execute the sale deed in spite of issuance of a legal notice. Even if these allegations are taken on its face value, even then the alleged dispute is of civil nature and the only remedy available with the complainant is to file a civil suit for getting the sale deed executed in her favour by way of specific performance of the agreement. The complaint has been filed in order to illegally bring them into her submissions and to comply with her illegal demand. They were allowed anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge, fatehabad, vide order dated 27.4.2005. That order was to remain in force only for one month and no reason was recorded therein as to why that order of limited duration was passed. They moved an application for regular bail on 4.5.2005 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tohana, who was pleased to accept their bail bonds and surety bonds and those were ordered to remain in force only up to 26.5.2005. They moved an application for regular bail on 4.5.2005 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tohana, who was pleased to accept their bail bonds and surety bonds and those were ordered to remain in force only up to 26.5.2005. When their application for anticipatory bail was pending before the Additional Sessions judge, Fatehabad, they were forced to give an affidavit to the effect that they would get the sale deed registered regarding the land in dispute in favour of the complainant as and when desired by her or as directed by the Court. The preliminary evidence led by the complainant did not disclose the commission of criminal offence by them. Even the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, observed in his order that the dispute between the parties was primarily of civil nature. As the complainant was related to the Additional Sessions Judge, so, an effort has been made by all concerned including the said court to bring into her submissions so that they comply with the illegal, unjustifiable and undesirable demand of the complainant. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned state counsel. 4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that no criminal offence is made out from the contents of the complaint and the process of the Court has been abused by summoning the petitioners to stand their trial for the offences under Sec.420, 506 and 120-B IPC. The matter is of civil nature which the complainant has tried to convert into criminal nature. Moreover, the contents of the complaint are not correct and are false. Therefore, the complaint, the summoning order and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. A reading of paras No.3 to 7 of the complaint may show that the matter is primarily of civil nature. As per the contents of those paras, petitioners No.1 and 2 had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and repayment of that loan amount was secured by means of a mortgage deed and in the event of the failure of those petitioners to repay the borrowed amount, they were to execute a sale deed in respect of the land so mortgaged in favour of the complainant and that they failed to repay that amount and also failed to execute the sale deed in her favour. In order to ascertain if any offence is made out from the contents of the complaint, relevant portion thereof is reproduced below:- "8. That after receipt of notice got issued by the complainant, the accused had on many occasions had given threats to murder her. Those threats were given on phone and they also threatened that if I will make an attempt to enter upon the land then they would murder her and they also asserted that they had to indulge in cheating and they have cheated the complainant and that all the accused that three brothers were part of process of cheating and that we three would allow her to enter upon the land. The accused had taken a sum of rs.2,50,000/- from me by giving an assurance and by executing a mortgage deed and by extending promise that as per terms of the mortgage deed they would execute a registered sale deed in my favour but in compliance with the assurance given by them the accused had not executed a registered sale deed of the mortgage land in my favour and on the other hand when the amount was demanded and when it was pressed upon the accused then they should execute a registered sale deed in my favour. The accused had threatened me and my husband with death. In that connection, he had submitted an application in Police station, City Tohana, but the police had not taken any action in the matter. 9. That on 15.2.2005 when myself and my husband Prem Chand had gone to village Badhai Khera for looking after the land then these three brothers had an altercation with me and they told me that if we would go to the fields then they would not allow us to come back to our house and they would murder us. The time was around 5 p. m. at that time. We got frightened and came to our house so this complaint is being filed without any delay.10. That the accused had cheated the complainant dishonestly for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The amount was taken by the accused in Tohana so this honble Court has got jurisdiction to try this case." 5. The offence under Sec.506 IPC is clearly made out from the said contents. Therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out from the contents of the complaint. 6. The amount was taken by the accused in Tohana so this honble Court has got jurisdiction to try this case." 5. The offence under Sec.506 IPC is clearly made out from the said contents. Therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out from the contents of the complaint. 6. In has been recently held by Honble Supreme Court in Ram Babu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh RAJ 2009 (5) 303 that the question and the stage of quashing of the complaint is not whether there is any truth in the allegation made but whether on the basis of the allegations cognizable offence has been alleged. 7. From the above discussion, it is concluded that there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.