Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 835 (PNJ)

Anita Rajpal v. State of Haryana

2013-07-09

Sabina

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing of FIR No.276 dated 10.6.2009 under Sections 406,420,467,468,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (‘IPC’ for short) (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Civil Line, Rohtak District Rohtak and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had become owner of the house in question in view of the compromise effected between the parties in civil litigation vide award dated 15.4.2006 (Annexure P4). Thereafter, husband of the petitioner allegedly sold the house in question to the complainant Pritam Kaur. Petitioner had no concern with the said sale deed as the petitioner had neither signed the sale deed as a vender nor as an attesting witness. Hence, petitioner could not be criminally prosecuted for any criminal act if any committed by her husband. Further, accused Sunil Rajpal has already deposited the sale price received by him in this Court while seeking relief of anticipatory bail in this case. 3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner and her husband in connivance with each other and with an intention to defraud the complainant had executed the sale deed in question. Hence, petitioner was also liable to face the criminal proceedings. 5. In the case of 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/respondent No.2, 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. (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 noncognizable 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. In the present case, FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioner and her husband on the allegations that with a view to defraud the complainant,the sale deed dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P9) had been executed by accused Sunil Rajpal in favour of complainant-Pritam Kaur and Simran Kaur. 7. Petitioner had filed the civil suit against her husband- Sunil Rajpal. The said suit was decided on the basis of compromise dated 08.04.2006 in Lok Adalat and award dated 15.4.2006,Annexure P4 was passed . The contents of the compromise read as under:- “This compromise has been executed between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff over the residential property bearing no. 197.R measuring 210 sq.yard situated at Model Town, Rohtak. The defendant will have no right or title over the said property which was given to the plaintiff in a family settlement and for which the plaintiff has filed the present civil suit. The present compromise has been executed between the parties to the present suit as per their own sweet will and without any pressure. Now the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the residential property bearing no. 197.R measuring 210 sq.yds. situated at Model Town, Rohtak and bounded as under:- North:27'-0" House of Kishan Hooda, South:27'-0" Road, East : 70'-0" House no.198 West: 70'-0" House no.197 of Sh.Jaswant Ram” 8. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he was exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. Petitioner filed reply( Annexure P8) in the said proceedings alleging that written statement in the suit filed by her husband was a result of fraud. In fact, petitioner had never filed the written statement in the said suit. Thereafter, Sunil Rajpal executed the sale deed Annexure P9 dated 25.8.2008 in favour of the complainant-Pritam Kaur and Simran Kaur. A perusal of the sale deed reveals that the same has not been signed by the petitioner as a vendor or as an attesting witness. 9. Thus, although the petitioner had become owner of the house in question on the basis of the award Annexure P4 dated 15.4.2006 yet her husband executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant and Simran Kaur. 9. Thus, although the petitioner had become owner of the house in question on the basis of the award Annexure P4 dated 15.4.2006 yet her husband executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant and Simran Kaur. In this regard, petitioner who was not a party to the sale deed, cannot be criminally prosecuted merely on the basis of suspicion that the sale deed had been executed by Sunil Rajpal in connivance with the petitioner. Further in the FIR, reference has been made to oral agreement to sell dated 28.3.2006 alleged to have been executed in the presence of the petitioner by her husband but a perusal of the sale deed reveals that no such reference has been made to any agreement to sell between the parties. Further the sale price received by Sunil Rajpal has since been deposited in this Court by him when he had sought anticipatory bail in the year 2009. Petitioner cannot be criminally prosecuted merely because she is the wife of Sunil Rajpal, who had executed the sale deed in question, although, at the time of execution of the sale deed he was not the owner of the property in question. Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.276 dated 10.06.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Civil line Rohtak District Rohtak and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————