Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1455 (PNJ)

Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-10-28

MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN

body2014
Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard. Petitioners seek quashing of F.I.R. No. 102 dated 12.07.2010 recorded under Sections 419/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.'). From the circumstances constituting the First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R.'), no offences under Section 419, I.P.C., is made out whereas offence of Section 420, I.P.C., has been found to be not made out in the inquiry conducted by police authorities as is evident from the inquiry report dated 17.09.2010 (Annexure P-3). 2. State is contesting the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. F.I.R. in the matter has been recorded on the complaint of Zail Singh, respondent No. 2. According to the allegations in the F.I.R., Jasvir Singh son of Beant Singh had entered into an agreement to sell with Surinder and Pavittar Singh sons of Sadhu Singh in which, date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 21.04.2008. On that date, Jasvir Singh was not present and, instead his son, namely, Ravinder Singh put his signature as Jasvir Singh to extend the date for execution and registration of the sale deed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Ravinder Singh did not receive any property and also did not deprive anybody of any property by signing as Jasvir Singh and that the sale deed pursuant to the aforestated agreement to sell has already been executed and no loss, whatsoever, has been caused to anybody. 5. The contention, however, is resisted by learned State counsel by submitting that petitioner No. 2, Ravinder Singh, by signing as Jasvir Singh, has committed the offence of Section 419, I.P.C. Section 419, I.P.C., reads as under:- "Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both". 6. 6. A perusal of Section 419, I.P.C., reveals that offence punishable under this Section would be complete only when impersonation is coupled with cheating as defined in Section 415, I.P.C., which reads as under:- "415 Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that perusal of the F.I.R. in the light of provisions of Section 419, I.P.C., would reveal that ingredients of this Section are not complete as the petitioners are not shown to have derived any benefit for themselves or for anybody else in whom they might be interested. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Jas v. State of U.P., 1971 (2) SCR 178 in a similar situation ruled that offence under Section 419, I.P.C., is not complete. A similar view has been given by Gauhati High Court in Ms. Aparajita Nath v. State of Assam, 2006 (43) AIC 491. 8. Nothing to the contrary could be shown during the course of hearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-State. 9. It also needs to be highlighted that respondent No. 1-State conducted an inquiry into the matter and in the inquiry report dated 17.09.2010 (Annexure P-3), it has been recorded as under:- "However, no fraud is found having committed with revenue department or vendor party due to putting signature of Jasvir Singh by his son, nor there was any mala fide intention on the part of Jasvir Singh or his son Ravinder Singh. Hence offence under Section 420, I.P.C., is not found having committed in the above noted case. If approved, it is hereby recommended to submit challan under Section 419, I.P.C., in the present case". In view of the above, allowing the proceedings emanating from F.I.R. No. 102 dated 12.07.2010 to continue shall be vexatious and abuse of the process of law and the Court. If approved, it is hereby recommended to submit challan under Section 419, I.P.C., in the present case". In view of the above, allowing the proceedings emanating from F.I.R. No. 102 dated 12.07.2010 to continue shall be vexatious and abuse of the process of law and the Court. Consequently, I accept the petition and quash the F.I.R. in question along with the proceedings arising therefrom and discharge the petitioners/accused from the proceedings.