Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 209 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. Amrik Singh

2010-01-11

GURDEV SINGH

body2010
Judgment GURDEV SINGH, J. 1. Petitioners Pritam Singh and others have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) for quashing of the complaint titled as "amrik Singh vs. Beyant Singh and others" under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of ACJM, Kurukshetra (Annexure P-4), the summoning order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-5) and the subsequent proceedings. 2. According to the petitioners, an agreement was entered into between petitioners No.1 to 4 and petitioner No.5 on 6.2.2005 regarding the ancestral house and as per that agreement, petitioner No.5 is coming in possession thereof from the last seven years, who was given the authority to give the same on rent or retain the same for himself. Petitioner No.5 along with his wife had given that house to Amrik singh-respondent, whose house had been damaged, to stay there till the repairs of his own house. The respondent was staying on the terrace of that house whereas the first floor was kept locked by petitioner No.5. On 15.7.2006, he visited that house along with his wife and was astonished to see that the locks of the house had been broken and theft had taken place. He lodged FIR No.248 dated 18.7.2006 against the respondent. The respondent got lodged FIR No.308 dated 23.8.2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in Police Station, shahbad, District Kurukshetra by filing a complaint under Sec.156 (3) of the code. After investigation, the police did not find any truth in that FIR and submitted the cancellation report on 6.6.2007. The respondent filed a protest petition in the Court of ACJM, Kurukshetra, against them on the same allegations as made in the FIR, in which they were summoned to stand their trial for the offences under Sec.467 and 471 IPC, after recordings the preliminary evidence. That complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the FIR, which was got registered by petitioner No.5 against the respondent in which he is already facing his trial. The agreement dated 6.2.2005 bears their signatures and was duly registered. That agreement was never challenged by the respondent and the same was found to be a genuine document. That complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the FIR, which was got registered by petitioner No.5 against the respondent in which he is already facing his trial. The agreement dated 6.2.2005 bears their signatures and was duly registered. That agreement was never challenged by the respondent and the same was found to be a genuine document. During the investigation of the above said FIR No.308 dated 23.8.2006, petitioners no.1 to 4 had sold their share in the ancestral property in favour of respondent No.5 after receiving the sale consideration. The complaint and the subsequent proceedings are the abuse of process of law. 3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent as well as to the State of Haryana, which was impleaded as respondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned State counsel. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the same set of facts, as pleaded in the complaint, the respondent got lodged the FIR which after investigation was found to be false. That itself shows that the respondent by filing the complaint is abusing the process of the Court. The agreement was duly entered into between the parties and is a genuine document. There is nothing on the record for concluding that the same was forged by the petitioners. Therefore, complaint and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had the right to file the complaint by way of a protest petition after the police submitted the cancellation report in the FIR on the ground that after investigation, the facts, as alleged in the FIR, were found to be false. The complaint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that such a cancellation report has been submitted by the investigating agency. It is very much clear from the perusal of the complaint that the agreement is a forged document. The house, in dispute, was ancestral house, which was inherited by the petitioners as well as by the respondent in equal shares. The petitioners could not have entered into any such settlement at the back of the respondent. It is very much clear from the perusal of the complaint that the agreement is a forged document. The house, in dispute, was ancestral house, which was inherited by the petitioners as well as by the respondent in equal shares. The petitioners could not have entered into any such settlement at the back of the respondent. He further argued that the petitioners could have filed a revision against the summoning order and such a petition under section 482 of the Code is not maintainable. In support of his arguments he has cited Minu Kumari and another V/s. State of Bihar 2006 (3) R. C. R. (Criminal) 271; ram Biraji Devi and another V/s. Umesh Kumar Singh and another 2006 (3)R. C. R. (Criminal) 308 and M/s Larsen ad Toubro Limited V/s. Central Bureau of investigation 2007 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 706. 4. It is not disputed that the same facts, which are narrated in the complaint, were mentioned in FIR No.308 dated 23.8.2006, and the same was got lodged by the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, the police submitted the cancellation report in that case. The investigating agency came to the conclusion that the agreement, in question, was not a false document and was a genuine document. However, merely on the ground that such a finding was recorded by the investigating agency, it cannot be held that the facts as stated in the complaint are false. It was held in Minu Kumaris Case (Supra) that where the police fails to take any action on the information given regarding the commission of cognizable office, the complainant has power under section 190 read with Sec.200 of the Code to lay complaint before the magistrate and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. Therefore, no order regarding the quashment of the complaint can be made only on the ground that the police had submitted the cancellation report in the FIR after investigating the matter in dispute regarding the agreement. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that the inherent power under Sec.482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. The above said rulings have been cited by him in support of that argument. There is no dispute with that proposition of the law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that the inherent power under Sec.482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. The above said rulings have been cited by him in support of that argument. There is no dispute with that proposition of the law. However, on the face of it, it becomes clear that there is no truth in the contention made in the complaint, and no offence is made out therefrom. The matter is liable to be quashed under Sec.482 of the Code. This petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the petitioners have not filed revision petition against the summoning order. They have come with the present petition for quashing of the complaint itself and such a petition can be entertained even if no revision has been filed against the summoning order. The position would have been different if the petitioners had come up with this petition only with the prayer for setting aside the summoning order. 6. The main contention in the complaint against the petitioners is that they forged agreement dated 6.2.2005 in respect of the ancestral house, which was owned by him as one of the co-owners and that they used this agreement and filed a false case against the complainant to the effect that he had stolen their articles from the house. 7. The contents of the agreement are very material for deciding the controversy between the parties. This agreement was executed between petitioners No.1 to 4 on the one side and petitioner No.5 on the other side, regarding the house, which they described as their ancestral property. Though at the time of arguments it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent and the petitioners are the brothers but it is very much clear from the heading of the petition itself that only the respondent and petitioner No.5 are brothers. 8. Though at the time of arguments it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent and the petitioners are the brothers but it is very much clear from the heading of the petition itself that only the respondent and petitioner No.5 are brothers. 8. The definition of false document is given in Sec.464 IPC and is reproduced below:- "making a false document-[ A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-First- who dishonestly or fraudulently- (a) makes, sings, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any digital signatures on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature; with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or secondly.- who, without lawful authority dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signatures either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or thirdly. Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. ] explanation 1. A mans signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2 The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his life time, may amount to forgery. Explanation 2 The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his life time, may amount to forgery. Explanation 3.- For the purposes of this Section, the expression "affixing digital signature" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000 ). ]" 9. According to Sec.463 IPC, whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage and injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, is said to commit forgery. An analysis of Sec.464 ipc shows that it divides false documents into three categories:- 1)The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2)The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 3)The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or ( c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the documents of the nature of the alteration. Thus, a person is stated to have made a false document, (i) if he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. 10. In the present case, the agreement was executed between the petitioners and was signed by them. 10. In the present case, the agreement was executed between the petitioners and was signed by them. The respondent is not alleged to be a party to that agreement nor it bears his signatures. Then how it can be said that this agreement is false document and that by executing the same, petitioners committed forgery. 11. The impugned complaint cannot be sustained regarding this agreement which cannot be said to be a false document, nor it can be said that the petitioners by executing the same had committed forgery. The filing of this complaint amounts to abusing the process of the Court. In the result, this petition is hereby accepted. The complaint dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure P-4), the summoning order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-5) and all the subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.