Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 196 (PNJ)

Parminder Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-02-15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, initially in the wake of complaint of complainant-Dalbir Kaur widow of Jaipal Singh Dhillon, respondent No.2(for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, by means of FIR No.389 dated 14.11.2006, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines Amritsar. 2. The complainant claimed that her husband Jaipal Singh Dhillon was the owner of the land in question, situated in village Manwala, Tehsil and District Amritsar. After his death, she along with his other LRs, inherited and became owner of the entire property left by Jaipal Singh Dhillon(deceased). According to the complainant that, the petitioner accused-Parminder Singh and his other co-accused had fraudulently prepared a forged General Power of Attorney dated 13.09.1995 of Jaipal Singh Dhillon and her uncle Madan Gopal Singh, whereas her husband had expired on 20.07.1988 and fraudulently executed two forged sale-deeds dated 23.04.1997 and 15.02.2001 in favour of his mother Sarabjit Kaur wife of Kashmir Singh. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner and his other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, fraudulently prepared the false General Power of Attorney and sale-deeds, cheated the complainant in order to grab the property, on the basis of pointed false and forged documents. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan). At the same time, petitioner-Parminder Singh and his other co-accused Ramesh Kumar moved an application to discharge them. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the final police report as well as the evidence and documents appended therewith, dismissed their application. Accordingly, all the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order and separate charge-sheet dated 24.09.2011(Annexure P-8). 5. Accordingly, all the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order and separate charge-sheet dated 24.09.2011(Annexure P-8). 5. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by petitioner- Parminder Singh and his other co-accused Ramesh Kumar, was dismissed as well by the Revisional Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 03.08.2012(Annexure P-9). 6. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioner-accused has straightway jumped to file the present 2nd revision petition(which is otherwise legally barred) in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to challenge the impugned order/judgment (Annexures P-8 and P-9). That is how I am seized of the matter. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context. 8. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of the learned counsel that, since there is no(sufficient) legal evidence on record, so, the petitioner-accused could not be charge-sheeted for the commission of pointed offences, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 9. As is evident from the record that, specific and direct allegations for the commission of heinous offences are assigned to the petitioner that he along with his other co-accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared the forged General Power of Attorney dated 13.09.1995 of Jaipal Singh Dhillon, who had already expired on 20.07.1988 (after more than seven years of his death). Not only that, there are direct allegations that the accused used the forged documents as genuine and had fraudulently executed two sale-deeds dated 23.04.1997 and 15.02.2001. Moreover, there are direct allegations that the petitioner appeared on behalf of the purchaser before the Sub-Registrar and was instrumental in executing the General Power of Attorney and sale-deeds in favour of his own mother Sarabjit Kaur. That means, the complicity of the petitioner is clearly borne out to execute the forged sale-deeds in favour of his mother Sarabjit Kaur, on the basis of fake Power of Attorney. Thus, it cannot possibly be saith at this initial stage that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. That means, the complicity of the petitioner is clearly borne out to execute the forged sale-deeds in favour of his mother Sarabjit Kaur, on the basis of fake Power of Attorney. Thus, it cannot possibly be saith at this initial stage that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Therefore, the contrary contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 10. The other celebrated arguments of the learned counsel that, the petitioner is not a beneficiary and there is no direct reliable evidence against him to prove his participation in the commission of pointed offences, are again lack merit. 11. As indicated hereinabove, there is more than sufficient material on record against the petitioner that he is the main accused, who was instrumental in forging the Power of Attorney and sale-deeds in favour of his mother. Moreover, all the accused have also been charge-sheeted for hatching a criminal conspiracy for the commission of heinous offences, in the manner depicted hereinabove. The offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B IPC is an independent offence and some general evidence pertaining to the conspiracy would be sufficient, to form part of the charge of conspiracy in the charge-sheet. As a matter of fact, some connecting link or connecting factor somewhere here and there in the evidence would be good enough to frame the charge, particularly when, his mother Sarabjit Kaur wife of Kashmir Singh is beneficiary and vendee in the fake sale-deeds. The stage of framing of charge and the stage to establish the guilt of conspiracy after the trial cannot possibly be equated and placed at par. There is a very less possibility of direct evidence and the evidence of hatching such criminal conspiracy has to be gathered from variety of facts, situations and circumstances, oozing out from the evidence to be brought on record by the prosecution at the time of final conclusion of the trial. The reliance in this regard can be placed to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Hardeo Singh Versus State of Bihar and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2245. 12. The reliance in this regard can be placed to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Hardeo Singh Versus State of Bihar and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2245. 12. Sequelly, at the stage of framing the charge, the Court prima facie has only to consider, whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not and the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence sufficient for conviction, at this stage. 13. A similar question was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case State of M.P. Versus S.B.Johari and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 665. Having interpreted the relevant provisions of framing the charges under Sections 227/228 of the Cr.P.C., it was ruled that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for conviction of the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. 14. Faced with the grave situation, the next cosmetic argument of the learned counsel that since, the impugned order of framing of charge and charge-sheet are non-speaking orders and the result of non-application of mind, so, the same deserve to be set aside, sans merit as well. 15. It is now well-settled legal proposition of law that, if the trial Magistrate decides to frame the charge, there is no requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he had to do so. The framing of charge itself is a prima facie order, indicative of the fact that the trial Judge has formed the opinion upon considering the police report, other documents and after hearing both the parties that there is a ground for presuming that the accused have committed the offence, as contemplated under Sections 225 to 228 Cr.P.C. This matter is no more res integra and is now well-settled. 16. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case U.P.Pollution Control Board Versus Mohan Meakins Limited and others, 2000(3) SCC 745 , wherein it was ruled as under(para6):- “6. 16. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case U.P.Pollution Control Board Versus Mohan Meakins Limited and others, 2000(3) SCC 745 , wherein it was ruled as under(para6):- “6. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court it has been pointed out that the legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons vide Kanti Bhadra Shah and another Versus State of West Bengal, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 407 : 2000(1) SCC 722 . The following passage will be apposite in this context: “If there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write on order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work? The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to overt all (sic) causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial Courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages of the trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. Therefore, to me, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the sufficient material/evidence on record has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner and his other co-accused, vide impugned order and separate charge-sheet dated 24.09.2011(Annexure P-8). 18. Not only that, in the instant case, the matter was again reexamined. All the arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner, have already been considered and negated by the Revisional Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 03.08.2012(Annexure P-9), which in substance is as under:- “Contentions and submissions of APP and Ld. All the arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner, have already been considered and negated by the Revisional Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 03.08.2012(Annexure P-9), which in substance is as under:- “Contentions and submissions of APP and Ld. Private Counsel for complainant that at the stage of framing charge, only prima facie case has to be seen from the material came on the police report/challan are very much supported by law relied upon by them and is almost settled legal position while going through the police report along with other material, it is prima facie evidence that there are sufficient allegations against the revisionist as well as other accused that under the conspiracy they all acted and firstly false and forged power of attorney of Jaipal Singh dated 13.9.95 was prepared. Said Jaipal Singh actually died in July, 1988. Said power of attorney was prepared in the name of Kulwant Singh and thereafter Kulwant Singh on the basis of said power of attorney made two sale deeds in favour of Sarabjit Kaur copies of which are on the file. Present revision petition is witnessed of one of the sale deed and further Parminder Singh also appeared on behalf of purchaser in one sale deed. Further, this fact has come in the enquiry report of I.O. that Sarabjit Kaur is the mother and Parminder Singh is her son. Kulwant Singh is also related with them as maternal uncle and they all further have relations with Jaipal Singh. So it cannot prima facie be presumed that they were not in the knowledge that Jaipal Singh had already died on 1988. Copies of the above said documents are on the file and there are specific statements of the witnesses recorded by I.O. supporting these allegations. So in view of the above said circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that Ld.Trial Court has rightly and according to law has dismissed the application of the revisionist, in which they have prayed that they be discharged and has rightly ordered to frame the charge against the revisionist and other accused as prima facie case has been fully made out from the material record on the file. So there is no merit at all in the present revision petition.” 19. So there is no merit at all in the present revision petition.” 19. Learned counsel did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order/judgment of the Courts below, at this initial stage. 20. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have analyzed the matter in the right perspective, negate the claim of the petitioner and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant behalf. Such impugned order/judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the instant second revision petition, (which is otherwise legally barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.), in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order and judgment (Annexures P-8 and P-9) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 21. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instantr petition is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention that, nothing recorded hereinabove, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the course of trial, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant context.