Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision:- 12.7.2 vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 July, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Criminal Misc. No. M- 43367 of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Misc. No. M- 43367 of 2004
Date of decision:- 12.7.2011
Nardev Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
2. Criminal Misc. No. M-6932 of 2008 Subedar Nar Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RITU BAHRI J.
This order shall dispose of both the above-mentioned criminal miscellaneous petitions as both are arising from the same FIR. Criminal Misc. No. M- 43367 of 2004 -2-
For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken up from Criminal Misc. No. M-43367 of 2004.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.389 dated 20.8.2002 under Sections 420,419,465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Brief facts of the case as per the petitioners are that the petitioners alongwith other persons purchased land measuring 32 bighas at Patti Mehna, Bathinda from one Saraswati Devi on 20.2.1963 by means of a sale deed. Petitioner No.1 had purchased a share in this land in the name of two daughters, who were minors at that stage. As per the revenue records this land was allotted to Saraswati Devi on 28.3.1958 vide allotment No.196. This land was comprised in Khasra No.3733, 3234 and 3732. Saraswati Devi was also owner in possession of some land in Shree Ganganagar and proof of her ownership was attached with the sale deed registered on 20.2.1963. One Ganesha Singh was allotted land in Khasra No.3734 vide the same notification in which Saraswati Devi was allotted land in the year 1958. Out of this 13 bighas of land had been acquired for construction of Civil Station in Bathinda in the year 1957-58. The petitioners are owners in possession of the land since the sale deed was executed and the land was mutated in their names after registration of the sale deed.
Karam Singh son of Ganesha Singh filed a suit for possession on 14.5.1974 against Sukhdev Singh and others including Taptesh Kaur, daughter of Nardev Singh, petitioner No.1. This suit was for possession of 10 bighas of land comprised in Khasra No.3734/1 situated in Mehna Patti, Bathinda on the basis of redemption of mortgage for a sum of Rs.1000/- as per jamabandi for the year 1967-68. This suit was dismissed on 16.11.1978 (Annexure P-1). The plaintiffs Criminal Misc. No. M- 43367 of 2004 -3- filed no appeal against this order. Karam Singh and others created a mortgage deed which was oral. Shri Joginder Singh, SDO (Civil) Bathinda inspected the spot and did not find the applicants/plaintiffs in possession of the land. The report of the SDO (Civil) Bathinda dated 21.12.1983 is Annexure P-2. As per the said plan prepared possession of the petitioners over a specific piece of land was marked and the application of Karam Singh was dismissed.
Mohinder singh and Surjit Singh sons of Karam Singh son of Ganesha Singh and one Sardara Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 13 bighas comprised in khasra No.3734/1, khewat No.2242, Khatauni No.7581 situated at Patti Mehna, Bathinda against Tejinder Singh and others. Taptesh Kaur daughter of petitioner No.1 was one of the defendants in the said suit. The plaint dated 30.3.1987 is attached with this petition as Annexure P-3. The suit was filed in 1987 and ultimately was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ambala vide his order dated 14.1.1997 (Annexure P-4). No appeal or revision was filed by the plaintiff against this decision.
Mohinder Singh and Surjit singh alongwith one Sardara Singh filed another suit for permanent injunction against Baldev Singh and others including Rattan Dev were dropped as they could not be served. Harbans Singh-petitioner No.2 was impleaded as one of the defendants in the said suit on 17.7.2002. In the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC status qua was required to be maintained with regard to possession of the suit property. In appeal against this order the Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the possession over the suit property of the plaintiff had not been established and taking into consideration the previous litigation between the parties dismissed the appeal vide order dated 03.09.2003 and a revision against this order is pending in this Criminal Misc. No. M- 43367 of 2004 -4- Court in Revision No.4736 of 2003. Petitioner No.1 Jaspal Singh has filed a complaint on behalf of Mohinder Singh and Surjit Singh sons of Karam Singh son of Ganesha Singh and Sardara Singh son of Harnam Singh, on the basis of which FIR under Sections 419,420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P-5) has been registered. The allegation in the FIR is that some other person was made to impersonate Saraswati Devi and the sale deed executed at Ganga Nagar is false and fabricated document. It is worthwhile to mention here that Jaspal Singh who has filed the present complaint, had been prosecuted by petitioner No.1 for offence under Sections 341,447 and 506 IPC, he had been summoned in the case on 07.2.2001 and in order to create a counter blast the criminal case has been registered against the petitioners.
The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR on the following grounds :-
1. The registered sale deed 20.2.1963 is signed as well as thumb marked by Saraswati Devi and attested by her son Shri Ram Kishan Sehgal. She alongwith her family has shifted to Aasam after disclosing her property at Bathinda. No one has raised any objection to the said sale deed.
2. The sale in question was executed more than 40 years ago. As per Section 90 this would be the sale dated 20.2.1963 presumed to be duly executed and decided by the person whom it proposed to be executed or attested. The sale deed was executed in Sri Ganga Nagar (Rajasthan) because registration fee chargeable was much less what was chargeable in Punjab.
3. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the sale deed is a forged document. The petitioners had made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda on 15.4.2004 and this representation has not been considered by the police while filing the challan in the above mentioned FIR. Respondent-Jaspal Singh has been impleaded as party to this petition on 19.9.2005 vide order dated 19.5.2005 by this Court.
Reply has been filed. It has been pleaded that the plot situated in Criminal Misc. No. M- 43367 of 2004 -5- khasra No.3734/1 was allotted to Ganesha Singh. Mohinder Singh and Surjit Singh are grand-sons of Ganesha Singh and they are recorded as owner in possession in the revenue records. In this land, 3/13th share had been mortgaged by Ganesha Singh with Gurdeial Singh and Sukhdev Singh, which was redeemed vide order dated 7.7.1983 and the possession was handed over to them. Petitioners claimed themselves to be owners of the said land on the basis of a forged and fabricated sale deed dated 20.2.1963 executed by one Smt. Surasati Devi. In their favour at Gnganagar (Rajasthan). Surasati Devi was allotted land in Khasra No.3732, 3733 and 3734 and thereafter, she sold the suit land to the petitioners measuring 16 Bighas 7 Biswas allotted in Khasra No.3734. Mutation had been entered qua the same in the name of respondent No.2. It has been mentioned that 13 Bighas 2 Biswas out of 16 Bighas and 7 Biswas allotted to Smt. Surasati Devi out of Khasra No.3734, had been acquired and she has also taken compensation for the said land. In sale deed qua the same land is a nullity and at the best the vendees step into shoes of Surasti Devi. The relevant documents in relation to Annexure R-1 to show that Surasati Devi had taken the possession qua the land. It has been admitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs had been dismissed on 16.11.1978 after the assurance given by the defendants that they will not interfere in the land of plaintiffs in that suit. A dismissal of the suit does not come in any way for registering the criminal complaint against the petitioners. The above-mentioned land stood relieved vide order dated 7.7.1983. The petitioners have not disclosed the name of other persons who claimed to be joint owners with the petitioners. The very fact that Surasati Devi had put her signature in punjabi while executing the alleged sale deed in Rajasthan goes to prove that the petitioner had impersonated some other lady with an ulterior motive to grab the land of respondent Ganesha Singh. Surasati Devi was allotted 16 Bighas 7 Biswas of land in Khasra No.3734, Criminal Misc. No. M- 43367 of 2004 -6- out of this 13 Bighas 2 Biswas was acquired and she has received a compensation. Thus, after calculating she was having only 3 Bighas 5 Biswas of land in her name. The alleged sale deed dated 20.02.1963 is forged as Surasati Devi after accepting the compensation could not make the sale of more than 3 Bighas and 5 Biswas of land. As regards the litigation of Jaspal Singh with the Wakf Board has been decided by the Court of Shri D.R. Arora, (ADJ), Presiding Officer, Punjab Wakf Board Tribunal, Bathinda that Jaspal Singh has purchased the property from Simarjit Kaur whereas Parkash Kaur admits that she is having the property from Wakf Board. The dispute in question of fact can be decided by adducing evidence and it can be taken up before the proceedings in the trial Court.
In the reply filed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police (City) Bathinda it has been stated that the FIR has been registered on the orders of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda passed on 17.8.2002. The Station House Officer, Kotwali, Bathinda under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register the case on the basis of the complaint and investigation. During the investigation, it has been established that the addresses of Saraswati Devi as given in the sale deed have been found to be fictitious as no person with the said name resided there and that she did not own any property at Shri Ganganagar. The allegation in the FIR that some lady had impersonated as Saraswati Devi who had signed the sale deed in punjabi while the Rapat Roznamcha No.215, Patwari patti Mehna, Bathinda dated 28.3.58 is signed in Hindi. The plea taken that Saraswati Devi owned property i.e. Ahata No.1012, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganga Nagar. This property was clubbed with the property of Mehna Patti of Bathinda in the sale deed has been found to be false as per the investigation. The property at Sri Ganga Nagar belongs to Rajasthan Government. The sale deed was executed on 20.2.1963 whereas the mutation was entered at Serial No.45430 on 12.3.2001. Criminal Misc. No. M- 43367 of 2004 -7- After submission of challan the above disputed question of fact can be gone into by the trial Court. The facts of the present case did not meet the parameters set out for quashing of FIR in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1991(1) RCR 383 and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Another, 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 793. The FIR cannot be quashed on the grounds taken by the petitioners.
The criminal miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.
12.7.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE