Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1469 (PNJ)

Tarun Mehta v. State of Haryana

2014-11-03

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - Petitioners Tarun Mehta, Jitender Mehta and Neeru Bala Mehta have filed this petition against State of Haryana and Suraj Bhan Mehta respondents under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.252 dated 30.03.2013 under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar District Hisar along with all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. 3. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 25.03.1989, a Will was executed in favour of Harbhagwan Mehta, father of the present petitioners by Shanti Devi, who was mother of Harbhagwan Mehta. Shanti Devi died on 10.11.1990. On 10.05.2002 mutation was sanctioned in favour of Harbhagwan Mehta. On 01.08.2008, FIR No.390 was lodged against Harbhagwan Mehta mainly on the allegation that Will is forged by him. That FIR was got lodged by the present complainant-respondent No.2. The petitioners were not party nor involvement of the petitioners is mentioned anywhere. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that challan was presented in that case and during the trial, Harbhagwan Mehta expired on 02.09.2010 and the proceedings qua him were abated on 21.10.2010. He next argued that mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on the basis of natural inheritance and they sold the property. Now, the present FIR has been lodged against them mainly on three grounds; firstly that they got the mutation entered of the property which was mutated in favour of Harbhagwan Mehta on the basis of forged Will, secondly, the relative of the present petitioners has used the gas connection, which was in the name of the deceased and thirdly, that petitioners have given incorrect address while getting prepared ration card etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if it is treated that a wrong number of the house has been given in the address, at the most it amounts to giving of false information to public servant and in that case, only a public servant can lodge an FIR. He next argued that if the gas connection is in the name of the deceased and was not surrendered and being used by relative of the petitioners, even then no case is made out against the petitioners. He next argued that if the gas connection is in the name of the deceased and was not surrendered and being used by relative of the petitioners, even then no case is made out against the petitioners. He next contended that if the mutation of the property of Harbhagwan Singh has been sanctioned in favour of the present petitioners on the basis of natural inheritance, even then, no offence is made out. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that a civil suit has already been filed, though no stay has been granted in that case. He next argued that from the FIR, it cannot be held that no offence is made out. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not specifically rebutted any argument addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner on merits of the case. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 mainly stressed that Vakalatnama has not been embossed as per rules but he has not shown any Rule of the Haryana Government to this Court that Vakalatnama is to be embossed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record document relating to Apostille Convention or the Apostille Treaty at Hague Convention to which India is also signatory and there is no necessity for local notarization of the document. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and have gone through the record. 7. From the record, I find that if the mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of natural inheritance in favour of the present petitioners on the death of their father, then no offence is committed by the petitioners. There is nothing on the record that any decree was passed by any court for setting aside the Will or declaring the Will as forged document. Otherwise also, there is allegation regarding forgery of the Will against father of the petitioners, who was beneficiary under the Will. Again, using of gas connection in the name of dead person by the relative of petitioners, does not show that any offence is made out against the present petitioners. Similarly, no offence of cheating or forgery etc. is made out, even if, it is taken that while preparing the ration card, wrong house number has been mentioned. Again, using of gas connection in the name of dead person by the relative of petitioners, does not show that any offence is made out against the present petitioners. Similarly, no offence of cheating or forgery etc. is made out, even if, it is taken that while preparing the ration card, wrong house number has been mentioned. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.2, only taken technical objection regarding embossing of Vakalatnama regarding which, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Apostille Convention. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and anr., [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3310] : 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 369, in which it is held that even if it is taken that property of other owner is sold by some other person, then only the vendee is to be treated as cheated and not the original owner. I have gone through the above-cited judgment and the same fully applies to the facts of the case. 9. In view of the above discussion, I find that no offence is made out against the present petitioners and the continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of the law. 10. Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. FIR No.252 dated 30.03.2013 under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar District Hisar along with all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————