Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 August, 2022
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021 (O&M)
Reserved on: 28.7.2022
Date of Decision: 10.8.2022
Jagdish Kaur and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. M.S.Nagra, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
CRM-23128-2022 The application is allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-5 to P-8 are taken on record.
CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021
1. Through the instant petition, cast under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 42 dated 4.3.2020, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, whereins, offences constituted, under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC, are embodied, and, also seek quashing of all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The gravamen of the petition FIR, becomes rested, upon a compromise drawn amongst the concerned. The compromise concerned, is appended as Anneuxre P-3, to the petition. Its contents are reproduced 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 20:54:03 ::: CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021 (O&M) -2- hereinafter.
"Compromise Today dated 19.9.2018 meeting held under leadership of Bhai Sahib Bhai Davinder Singh Ji Khalsa Khanna Wale, in which Bhai Sahib Singh Ji, Bhai Darshan Singh Ji, Bhai Narinder Singh Ji, Sarabpreet Singh, Prabhjot Singh and Gurjit Singh participated and in their presence below mentioned decisions were approved in written:-
1. Sale Deed of Plot No. 95-E situated at Ludhiana shall be registered on the name of Sardar Darshan Singh.
2. Plot of Bajra shall remain on the name of Narinder Singh Ji, its entry shall be given to S. Darshan Singh Ji by S. Narinder Singh Ji.
3. S. Narinder Singh Ji is occupant of house situated at Patna and it shall remain under possession of S. Narinder Singh Ji, whose price is assessed as Rupees 63.50 lac. Out of which, after deducting Rupees 13.50 lac as per decision, four cheques of Rs. 50 lac shall be given to Bhai Davinder Singh Ji. S. Narinder Singh shall pay money and get back the cheques. S. Darshan Singh shall give sale deed of house to Bhai Davinder Singh.
4. Out of two plots of 40 Sq. Yrds., case is pending on one and on the second 40 Sq. Yrd. plot is common on the name of three brothers Darshan Singh Ji, Bhai Narinder Singh and S. Daljit Singh.
5. The godown at Patna, whose rent deed is on the name of Gurpreet Singh and he is bound to transfer it on the name of Narinder Singh or any member of his family.
All the afore-mentioned decisions accepted under leadership of Bhai Sahib Bhai Davinder Singh Ji Khalsa Khanna Wale and in presence of Bhai Sahib Singh Ji, Sarabpreet Singh, Prabhjot Singh and Gurjit Singh."
3. The allegations made in the FIR (supra), appertain to an offence 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 20:54:03 ::: CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021 (O&M) -3- under Section 420 of the IPC, becoming committed by the present petitioners, and, they become rested, upon the petitioners breaching clause No. 3 of Annexure P-3. The aggrieved informant/complainant contends, that the above breached clause No. 3 of Annexure P-3, has resulted in wrongful loss, being caused to him, and, wrongful gain becoming purveyed to the present petitioners, given despite clause No. 3, becoming meted compliances, at the instance of the informant, and, resultantly the property, as, mentioned thereins, becoming transferred in the name of the petitioners, yet the latter breaching clause No. 3. Therefore, as above stated, it has to be determined, whether as a matter of fact, there has been any willful, and/or a mens rea laden, omission or any breach, at the instance of the petitioners, to clause No. 3 of Annexure P-3.
4. For determining the above, it has to be initially understood, as to what clause No. 3 conveys. Clause No. 3 assigns a right to the informant- complainant, to make an insistence, upon the petitioners concerned, to execute the apposite registered deed of conveyance, qua the house situated at Patna, but the execution thereof, is made dependant, upon, the four cheques of Rs. 50 lacs, becoming deposited with Bhai Davinder Singh Ji, and, after Narinder Singh paying money to the concerned, Narinder Singh becoming delivered, by Bhai Davinder Singh, the four cheques (supra), as became deposited with him, and, as therein stated, that then Darshan Singh executing the apposite deed of conveyance. Moreover, a duty is also cast, upon S. Darshan Singh, to deposit the sale deed of the house in Patna, with Bhai Davinder Singh.
5. The making of the above interpretation, and, also understanding of clause No. 3 of Annexure P-3, leads this Court to determine, whether the 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 20:54:03 ::: CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021 (O&M) -4- above obligations, as became cast, upon all the above, became complied with by each. The common trustee, is Bhai Davinder Singh, and, it is on, a reading of the statement of Bhai Davinder Singh, that it can be gauged whether each of the rival combatants, had complied with the obligations, as became cast, upon each.
6. The learned counsel for respondent concerned, has submitted that since Bhai Davinder Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., has supported the informant, therefore, he submits that the presents petitioners, have committed the offence of cheating, arising, from theirs wrongful gaining, the property contained in clause No. 1, from the informant, but yet theirs omitting to perform the obligation, as became cast, upon them, qua theirs executing the registered deed of conveyance with Narinder Singh, qua the property at Patna.
7. Apparently, the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., is an unsigned statement, and, if in any signatured statement, the common trustee Bhai Davinder Singh, has repelled the efficacy thereof, thereupon, the signatured echoings, and, declaration as made by the common trustee Bhai Davinder Singh, would always prevail, and, also would underwhelm the effect, if any, of the unsigned statement, if any, as, made before the police rather by the above.
8. In the above regard, it is relevant to refer to a photocopy of the affidavit, sworn by the common trustee Bhai Davinder Singh. The affidavit is appended as Annexure P-8 to CRM-23128-2022. A reading of the entire contents thereof, which becomes reproduced hereinafter, does disclose, that despite Narinder Singh, depositing with him four cheques, as detailed thereins, and, also Darshan Singh depositing the sale deed of property in 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 20:54:03 ::: CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021 (O&M) -5- Patna, yet thereafter in terms of compromise, neither Narinder Singh nor Gurjit Singh accessing him to deposit the amount of each cheque, for thereafters theirs becoming transferred to the present petitioners concerned, for enabling him/them to execute a register deed of conveyance qua the informant, in respect of the property at Patna.
"Affidavit I, Bhai Sahib Bhai Davinder Singh Ji, Chief Sewadar of Gurudwara Akal Ashram, Sohana District SAS Nagar, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That compromise dated 19.9.2018 was executed between Darshan Singh son of Joginder Singh and Narinder Singh son of Joginder Singh both are real brothers. The detailed terms and conditions of the above said compromise were amicably settled and reduced in writing between both the parties.
2. That as per the terms and conditions of the compromise at Sr. No. 3 the total price of the Patna property was settled as Rs. 63.50 lacs and out of that an amount of Rs. 13.50 lacs was reduced on account of amicably settlement between the parties, for the remaining amount of Rs. 50 lacs. Narinder Singh has submitted the four cheques detailed as under:-
Sr. Cheque Cheque Amount Drawn on
No. No. date
1. 000001 19.2.2019 12.50 lacs Punjab and Sindh
Bank, Gurudwara
Kalgidhar Branch,
Ludhiana
2. 000003 19.4.2019 12.50 lacs Punjab and Sindh
Bank, Gurudwara
Kalgidhar Branch,
Ludhiana
3. 000002 19.6.2019 12.50 lacs Punjab and Sindh
Bank, Gurudwara
Kalgidhar Branch,
Ludhiana
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 20:54:03 :::
CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021 (O&M) -6-
4. 000004 19.1.2020 12.50 lacs Punjab and Sindh
Bank, Gurudwara
Kalgidhar Branch,
Ludhiana
Total Rs. 50 lacs (Total Fifty lacs only)
3. That as per the above said terms of compromise, Narinder Singh was to deposit the amount of each cheque in cash on its due date as mentioned in the each cheque with the deponent and get back the said cheque from the deponent respectively. Darshan Singh was to keep the sale deed of Patna property with the deponent.
4. That as per the terms of serial No.3 of the above said compromise, Darshan Singh has kept the sale deed of Patna property with the deponent, which is still lying with the deponent, but Narinder Singh has not perform his part of compromise dated 19.9.2018 with reference to terms of serial No. 3. Neither Narinder Singh nor Gurjit Sngh son of Narinder Singh himself has ever approached to the deponent for deposit the amount of each cheque with the deponent on their due dates as mentioned in the cheques. All the above said four cheques for the total amount of Rs. 50 lacs are still lying with the deponent."
9. A reading of the echoings, as made in Annexure P-8, does secure a firm conclusion from this Court, that since there was an omission on the part of the informant, to comply in the above manner, with the contractual obligation/settlement obligation, as became cast, upon them, and, as appertaining to clause No. 3 of the settlement. Therefore, he cannot become at all enabled, to claim, that there has been any mens rea laden willful omission, on the part of the petitioners, to deny him hence the benefit of clause No. 3, nor he can contend that despite the informant, ensuring his complying with the mandate of clause No. 1 of Annexure P-3, 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 20:54:03 ::: CRM-M No. 1127 of 2021 (O&M) -7- yet there being a mens rea laden, deliberate omission, on the part of the petitioners concerned, to mete compliance(s) with clause No. 3, of the settlement, nor also, at this stage, it can be formidably concluded that hence, an offence constituted under Section 420 of the IPC, rather becoming committed by the petitioners.
10. In consequence, there is merit in the petition, and, the same is hereby allowed. FIR No. 42 dated 4.3.2020, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, whereins offences constituted, under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC, are embodied, and, also all the consequential proceedings, hence arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.
11. However, liberty is reserved to the combatants concerned, to at any stage, and, after making compliance(s) qua the settlement obligation, as occurring in clause No. 3 of the apposite settlement, to thereafter ask, for a direction, from the Civil Court concerned, that the registered deed of conveyance be executed in respect of the property at Patna.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
August 10, 2022
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 20:54:03 :::