Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1643 (PNJ)

Karam Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-08-29

SABINA

body2011
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 242 dated 4.9.2003 (Annexure P1) under Sections 420,468,471,467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Division No.4 Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners were a complete abuse of process of law. The petitioners, who were minors in the year 1953-54, were being proceeded against in the year 2003 qua alleged forgery done in the year 1953-54. Petitioner No.2 has died during the pendency of the petition. 3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioners had used the forged documents in civil litigation and, hence, the criminal proceedings were liable to continue against them. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 5. It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 6. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P1) reveals that the date and time of occurrence was the year 1953-54. DDR No.36 dated 4.9.2003 was registered at 5.50 p.m. Thereafter, the FIR in question was registered. 7. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P1) reveals that the date and time of occurrence was the year 1953-54. DDR No.36 dated 4.9.2003 was registered at 5.50 p.m. Thereafter, the FIR in question was registered. 7. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was resident and proprietor of village Chachowal. The common land of the village had been recorded in the revenue record as owned by ‘Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat’ in the column of ownership and ‘Maqbooja Malkan’ in the column of possession of the jamabandis for the last many decades. The litigation qua the land in dispute was pending between the accused and the Gram Panchayat. The accused claimed their rights qua the suit land on the basis of entries in the column of cultivation of jamabandis for the years 1944-45 and 1953-54. The said revenue record was produced by the accused before the Divisional Deputy Director-cum-Collector Jalandhar. The case was decided against the accused. However, in appeal, the Joint Development Commissioner (RD) Chandigarh passed the order in favour of the petitioners. When the complainant and other inhabitants of the village Chachowal consulted the revenue record, they found out that the entries in the jamabandi sfor the year 1944-45 and 1953-54 (Parat Sarkar) had been tampered with. The entries in the column of cultivation from ‘Maqbooja Malkan’ has been changed to ‘Malooka Hisedar’. The complainant got the copies of the jamabandies Parat Patwar for the year 1944-45 and 1953-54 and the entries were correct and were in consonance with the previous entries in the jamabandis in the column of cultivation. The accused had forged and fabricated the revenue record which had been kept in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner Jalandhar with a motive to grab the shamlat land of the village. 8. The case of the petitioners is that their ancestors were in possession of the suit land from the year 1944 till 1992. Due to inadvertance, the entry qua Hissedar was not reflected in the revenue record after consolidation in the year 1960. The entries in column No.5 of jamabandi for the year 1944-45 was recorded as ‘Makbooja Mehru son of Malooka Hissedar’. Similar, entries continued in the jamabandi for the year 1953-54, 1957-58. After consolidation, the entries in column No.5 were changed as Karam Singh son of Mehar Singh @ Mehru,Gair Marusi. Thereafter, the said entry continued in the revenue record. The entries in column No.5 of jamabandi for the year 1944-45 was recorded as ‘Makbooja Mehru son of Malooka Hissedar’. Similar, entries continued in the jamabandi for the year 1953-54, 1957-58. After consolidation, the entries in column No.5 were changed as Karam Singh son of Mehar Singh @ Mehru,Gair Marusi. Thereafter, the said entry continued in the revenue record. Entries in the jamabandis for the year 1992-93 were changed as possession was taken from the petitioners. 9. Admittedly, civil litigation is going on between the parties for the last 30 years. The FIR in question has been lodged in the year 2003 qua forgery which is allleged to have been committed in the year 1953-54. The case of the complainant is that the forgery was committed qua the record maintained by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner. The age of petitioner No.1 has been given as 60 years. The present petition was filed in the year 2004. Thus, at the time of the alleged forgery, petitioner No.1 was aged about 10 years. Age of petitioner No.2 has been given as 57 years. Petitioner No.2 is the younger brother of petitioner No.1 . Petitioner No.2, has since died, but he was also about 7 years old at the time of the alleged forgery. It is not believable that boys of that age could go to the Office of Deputy Commissioner and commit forgery of record. Once the allegation qua forgery goes then the arguements raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the forged record had been used by the petitioners is also liable to be rejected. Thus, it appears that the FIR in question has been lodged just to pressurize the petitioners in the civil litigation pending between the parties. Parties can get their rights settled qua the suit land in the civil litigation but the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.242 dated 4.9.2003 (Annexure P1) under Sections 420,468,471,467 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No.4 Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed. ----------0BSK0----------