Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 July, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Misc. No. M-14312 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-14312 of 2012 (O & M)
Date of decision:-20.07.2012
Jagir Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:- Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI J.(Oral)
Criminal Misc. No.40490 of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.
Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure P-6) is taken on record.
Criminal Misc. No. M-14312 of 2012 Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.158 dated 02.8.2011, under Sections 406 and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, New Baradari, Jalandhar, (Annexure P-5).
Criminal Misc. No. M-14312 of 2012 -2-
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is owner in possession of a plot measuring 1 Kanal 3 Marlas (23 Marlas), situated in the area of Village Ladhewali, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, which was purchased by him from Bhagwant Singh son of Mehar Singh vide registered sale deed dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure P-1). Bhagwant Singh was shown to be owner of the said land in the jamabandi for the year 2007-08. The mutation was also entered in the name of the petitioner. At the time of sale, Bhagwant Singh assured that the property was free from all encumbrances. After some time when the petitioner came to India from United Kingdom, then he learnt that Mahinder Singh (respondent No.2) had lodged an FIR against one Pritpal Singh. The name of the petitioner did not figure in the FIR, however, later on, he was arrayed as an accused.
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.2 restraining him, his agents, nominees and representatives from taking the forcible possession, dispossessing the petitioner in any manner, making encroachment, raising any construction, alienating and mortgaging the plot measuring 23 Marlas. He further submits that the case put up by the complainant before the police was highly contradictory since the land measuring 23 Marlas was not mentioned in the sale deeds registered with respect to 42 Kanals 9 Marlas of the land and there was no agreement with him (respondent No.2) in respect of 23 Marlas of land purchased by the petitioner. He further submits that the land in Criminal Misc. No. M-14312 of 2012 -3- question was not owned either by Malkiat Kaur or Nirmal Singh. In fact, Bhagwant Singh was the real owner of the land, from whom the petitioner had purchased the same. He further submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, therefore, no offence under Sections 406 and 420, IPC is made out against him. The dispute, if any, is of civil nature, therefore, the pendency of the FIR is an abuse of the process of law and the same may be quashed.
Heard.
The FIR in question was registered after preliminary inquiry. Thereafter, the matter was got investigated by the orders of the senior police officers of the different investigating agencies. Ultimately, the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency was (as per report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., presented by the police before the learned Area Magistrate) that Pritpal Singh, Bhagwant Singh and the petitioner (Jagir Singh) were the perpetrators for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, IPC. Now, the fact is that after investigation, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has been presented and the case is fixed for consideration of charges. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, present FIR should be quashed, is not tenable. It is settled by now that when the police investigating agency has collected some material against a particular accused and nominates him as an additional accused during the course of investigation of a particular case, then that Criminal Misc. No. M-14312 of 2012 -4- accused cannot be allowed to urge that the FIR should be quashed because his name did not figure in the FIR. The Court has to see the other material collected during the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the FIR cannot be quashed in isolation. Once the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted then the whole material placed on record has to be judged to form the opinion- as to whether a prima facie case for proceeding further is made out. In the case in hand, the investigating agency has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner alongwith two more persons committed the offences. The challan has already been submitted before the learned Area Magistrate for their prosecution, therefore, at this stage, it will be absolutely undesirable to discuss in detail the allegations and the material available on record, lest it may prejudice any party.
Even otherwise, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are disclosing the disputed questions of facts, which are to be answered by the learned trial court. If after filing of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., no case for his prosecution is made out, in that eventuality, the person nominated as an accused can very well make out a case before the learned trial court for his discharge at appropriate stage. Any opinion made by this Court with regard to culpability of the petitioner and sustainability of the FIR would certainly prejudice his case before the trial court.
It is apposite to mention here that this Court while deciding the case in hand is conscious that if no case is made out Criminal Misc. No. M-14312 of 2012 -5- from the material collected during the course of investigation and the prosecution is launched with malafide intention, in such a situation, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction enshrined in Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR.
Suffice it to say that no case for quashing of the impugned FIR is made out, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
July 20, 2012 ( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE