Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 303 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-13

AJAI LAMBA

body2010
Judgment 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing FIR No.66 dated 24.4.2008 under Sections 420, 342 IPC registered with Police Station, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and subsequent proceedings. FIR has been registered on the statement of Surjit kaur who has been arrayed as respondent No.2. Despite the service, none has put in appearance for respondent No.2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1, balbir Singh purchased the land measuring 24 kanal from respondent No.2 Surjit kaur for a sum of Rs.18 lac vide sale deed registered on 2.6.2006 (Annexure p-1 ). 2. At that point in time, respondent no.2 had some dispute with her son Sukhjinder Singh and others who did not want surjit Kaur to sell the land. So much so, respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint against her son, Sukhjinder Singh and others. Annexure P-4 is the statement of Surjit Kaur given as CW-1 in which a mention in regard to sale of land on account of personal necessity has been made. 3. Learned counsel further contends that the dispute between the mother and son was settled and therefore, the complainant did not appear in the criminal complaint proceedings. On 15.3.2007, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution as would be evident from Annexure P-5. 4. It has been argued that when the matter was settled between the mother and son, respondent-complainant filed a complaint on 2.11.2007 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. 5. The matter was enquired into by Deputy Superintendent of police, Garhshankar. In enquiry report dated 1.12.2007 of Deputy superintendent of Police, allegations in the complaint were found to be not proved. Learned counsel lays a lot of stress on Annexure P-8 i. e. document addressed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur to the Additional director General of Police, Law and Order, Punjab indicating that the Senior superintendent of Police accepted the enquiry report of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the enquiry report having been accepted upto the level of senior Superintendent of Police, on subsequent complaint by respondent No.2, fir could not have been lodged and continuance of proceedings would cause manifest injustice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the enquiry report having been accepted upto the level of senior Superintendent of Police, on subsequent complaint by respondent No.2, fir could not have been lodged and continuance of proceedings would cause manifest injustice. 6. It has further been pointed out that it would be abuse of process of law and process of Court to allow the proceedings to continue in view of Annexure P-7 and P-8 to which reference has been made above. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out from the investigation file that report of Additional Director General of Police was referred to the secretary, Home Department and same complaint dated 2.11.2007 was marked for re-enquiry. On re-enquiry, it was found that infact the petitioners have committed the offence of not only duping the complainant (respondent No.2) of rs.7 lac but also dis-possessing her of land. I have considered the issue. 8. It transpires from the investigation file that in context of complaint dated 2.11.2007, enquiry was conducted. At the initial stage, the deputy Superintendent of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police recorded that no offence is made out. Home Department, however, referred the matter back for re-investigation. 9. The complainant might have made another complaint thereafter, however, the fact remains that after investigation it has been concluded that there is prima facie material available on record that the petitioners have committed offences as alleged and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that in view of first enquiry, the FIR needs to be quashed, is not acceptable. 10. The nature of offence itself is serious in so much as, allegation is that petitioner No.1, Balbir Singh got sale deed of 24 kanals registered in his name. So far as payment of sale consideration is concerned, no documentary evidence by way of cheque or bank draft is available to indicate that complainant- respondent No.2 received any amount in lieu of sale of her land. Other than the land, the respondent-complainant has been deprived of Rs.7 lac on the pretext of sending her abroad. Considering the disputed questions of facts, Sec.482 Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked so as to come to a conclusion that the facts alleged by the complainant are disproved. Other than the land, the respondent-complainant has been deprived of Rs.7 lac on the pretext of sending her abroad. Considering the disputed questions of facts, Sec.482 Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked so as to come to a conclusion that the facts alleged by the complainant are disproved. It would be for the trial Court to take evidence and record findings of fact after appreciation of the same. 11. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 12. Anything said hereinabove is only in context of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.