Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rambhaj And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 5 July, 2018
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013
Date of decision: July 05, 2018
Rambhaj and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ramesh Sindhar, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
***
SURINDER GUPTA, J The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No. 77 dated 23.2.2012, registered for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 195-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") at Police Station Madlauda, District Panipat along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR was got registered by Saroj Devi wife of Surender (daughter of Ram Piari) with the allegations that the land of her maternal grand father Ghasi, measuring 17 acres, which was inherited by her nani (maternal grand mother) Patori, was transferred in the name of Maria and Hardai, who have further given this land to Mahi Pal son of Ram Dia showing him as son of Hardai. They got prepared false documents and filed civil suit to misguide the court to this effect. Hardai and Maria were not the 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:49:56 ::: Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013 -2- daughters of Badam as he had only son namely Tek Ram. Mahi Pal is in fact son of Shanti wife of Siri Ram resident of Phurlak.
3. Maria in her Will has shown Mahi Pal as her sister's son while in fact he is son of Shanti, who was not the real sister of Maria. The fake Will was got prepared by Mahi Pal in connivance with Ram Bhaj, Shamsher and Bijender sons of Tek Ram.
4. Patori daughter of Ami Lal was married with Bhagirath of village Adiyana but she had no issue from this marriage. After death of Bhagirath, she entered into a kareva marriage with Munshi who was earlier married with Ram Rajo. After the death of Munshi, Patori again entered into kareva marriage with Bhartu and from this marriage, she gave birth to Lakhmi, Ram Chand and Ram Piari. After the death of Lakhmi and Ram Chander, Mahipal in connivance with above named persons grabbed 17 acres land of Ram Piari. Hardai had sold 11 kanals of land to Ishwar son of Mange Ram in the year 1995. After the death of Ram Piari, false documents were got prepared to show Ram Piari as daughter of Munshi and her land was got mutated in the name of Ishwar, Kandal and Kuldeep sons of Puran to the extent of 8 acres. Ram Piari also got registered FIR against Tek Ram etc. regarding this land and giving beatings to her in which Tek Ram and others were convicted. It was alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid persons have mislead the court by showing Ram Piari as daughter of Munshi who in fact is daughter of Bhartu.
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the paper book very carefully.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that dispute raised by the complainant pertains to the land which was owned by Bhartu after death 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:50:16 ::: Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013 -3- of Ghasi. In this regard civil litigation had also ensued. Ram Piari had filed civil suit wherein she had given the pedigree table which find mentioned in para no.3 of the judgment of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat and is reproduced as under :-
Sahab Singh ____________________________!____________________________ Maiya Tota ! ! Mangat ______________________________________ ! Jiwan Rura ! ! ! ______!_______ ________!______ Badar_______ ! ! Thana Maida Tek Ram Marya Hardei Gokal Ghasi (died issueless) ! ! ! Bhartu _____________!___________ ! ! ! Patori (widow) Munshi Bhagirath ! ! (died issueless) Ram Pyari (daughter) ! __________________________ Kishna Puran Ram Piyari
7. In that suit, Ram Piari had sought declaration which has been discussed in para no.2 of the aforesaid judgment and the same is reproduced as under :-
"2. In civil suit titled as Ram Piari Vs. Kishana etc. the plaintiff has sought a declaration that plaintiff is owner of ¾ share of a agriculture land comprising in khewat no. 60/52, khatoni no. 88, rect. No. 112, killa no.25/5, rect. no. 136, killa nos. 13, 14, 15 and 28, rec. No.172, killa no. 15/2, 16/1, rect. no. 173, killa no.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19/1, 20 rect. no. 174, killa no.11, 19, 20, khasra no. 601, kitas 21 total area 132K 17M situated within the area of Village Adiyana, Tehsil and Distt. Panipat as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92 as mutation no. 2135 regarding inheritance of Sh. Ghasi son of 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:50:16 ::: Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013 -4- Mangat is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and judgment and decree dated 6.1.1994 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Panipat is null and void to the extent of ¼ share and is not binding upon the plaintiff with a consequential relief of joint possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, mortgaging or creating charge in any manner or leasing out the same."
8. Madia @ Maria and Tek Ram had also filed civil suit for declaration and possession. Both the suit were decided together by the learned Civil Judge with the observations in para no.46 of the judgment which is reproduced as follows :-
"46. In the light of discussion made above, it is seen that it has been held that Maria, Hardei and Tek Ram are the nearest agnates of late Ghasi and Ram Piari could not succeed to his share in the suit land as Smt. Patori could not succeed for the share of Ghasi as she was not preferably agnate than defendants Maria, Hardei and Tek Ram. As a sequel to this, the main suit filed by the plaintiff no.131/1/2002 titled as Ram Piari vs. Kishana etc. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with cost and the consolidated suit no.26/99 titled as Maria etc. vs. Ram Piari etc. succeeds and the same is accordingly decreed as prayed for with costs. Accordingly, it is held that plaintiffs Maria etc. in the consolidated suit are entitled to seek possession of one half share of ½ share of agricultural land measuring 132K-17M i.e. comprising in khewat No.60/52, khatoni no.88, rect. no.112, killa no.25/5 (0- 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:50:16 ::: Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013 -5-
2), rect. no.136 killa no. 13 (7-9), 14, (8-0), 15 (6-19), 26 (4-9), rect. no. 172 killa no.15/2 (5-5), 16/1 (4-7), 14 (8-0), 15 (7-12) 16 (7-12), 17 (8-0), 18 (8-0), 19/1 (3-7), 20 (7-11), rect. no.174 killa no.11 (7-8), 19 (7-0), 20 (7-8), 601 (8-0), kittas 21 total area 132K-17M, besides their own share, owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, situated in the revenue area of village Adyana, as the other ½ share of ½ share is already, owned and possessed by the plaintiff, which was left by deceased Sh. Ghasi S/o Mangat r/o Village Adyana. Further a declaratioin is also issued in favour of plaintiffs in this suit and against defendants Ram Piari etc. that mutation no.2135 of village Adyana relating to inheritance of property of deceased Ghasi son of Mangat is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs to the extent of its sanctioning one half share of ½ share of agricultural land left by Ghasi in favour of defendants i.e. Puran, Kishana and Ram Piari and further a declaration is issued that the plaintiffs are owners of whole share of the above said agricultural land which was owned by deceased Ghasi, by inheritance.
Defendants Ram Piari etc. are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the decree-holder Maria and others within one month from today. Otherwise, decree-holder in civil suit titled as Maria etc. Vs. Ram Piari etc. would be at liberty to take possession of the suit land in accordance with law. A copy of judgment will be placed in civil suit no.26/99 titled as Maria etc. Vs. Ram Piari etc. Decree sheet be 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:50:16 ::: Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013 -6- prepared accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance."
9. Ram Piari filed Regular Second Appeal bearing No. 2770 of 2004 (Annexure P2) in which issue of inheritance of Bhartu was discussed. It was observed that the suit land measuring 132 kanal 17 marla was estate of Bhartu. The question in that appeal was as to whether Ram Piari was born to Rajo from the loins of Munshi as she was claiming herself to be the daughter of Patori from the loins of Munshi. While disposing of that Regular Second Appeal, it was observed as follows :-
"The question that has been thrown up for consideration is whether Ram Pyari had any right to succeed to the estate of Bhartu on the basis of her plea that she is the daughter of Patori, who had performed kareva marriage with him.
It is to be noticed at the cost of repetition that initially, Patori was married with Bhagirath and after his death, she had performed kareva marriage with Munshi, who was also married with Rajo. Munshi and Rajo had three children from marriage, namely, Kishna, Puran and Ram Pyari. This fact was,however, seriously disputed by Ram Pyari, who had pleaded that she was the daughter of Patori born from the loins of Munshi.
In this view of the matter, the only question that is to be determined is as to whether Ram Pyari is the daughter of Patori with her union with Munshi as claimed by her or she is the daughter of Rajo born from the loins of Munshi.
A perusal of the evidence which has been adduced by the 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:50:16 ::: Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013 -7- respective parties is, therefore, necessary to be adverted to.
Interestingly, in the previous suit where Ram Pyari is said to have suffered a collusive decree in favour of Ishwar Singh, Kanwal Singh and Kuldeep Singh (appellant nos. 2 to 4 in the present appeal), she stated that she is the daughter of Patori and Bhartu. That suit was filed by Ishwar Singh, Kanwal Singh and Kuldeep Singh and Ram Pyari verified the written statement by proclaiming herself to be the daughter of Bhartu and in this manner, clandestinely alienated the property of Bhartu in favour of the aforesaid three persons. Her testimony which has been recorded as DW1 in the instant proceedings, assumes interesting reading as she testified herein that Munshi and Rajo had three children, namely, Kishna, Puran and herself. She, of course, tried to wriggle out of this admission in the next breath, but, in this very statement, she goes on to state that she is not the daughter of Bhartu, implying thereby that she concededly played a virtual fraud when she suffered the earlier decree in favour of Ishwar Singh, Kanwal Singh and Kuldeep Singh.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
In view of the aforementioned material on record, especially the admission of Ram Pyari herself which cannot be wished away, it is abundantly clear that she was, in fact, the daughter of Munshi and Rajo which inference is also fortified from the fact that she chose to alienate the property of Bhartu 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:50:16 ::: Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013 -8- in favour of her nephews, who are the sons of Puran."
10. In the instant FIR issue has been raised that Ram Piari was born to Patori from the loins of Bhartu. This issue has already been decided by the civil court and it cannot be again re-agitated in a criminal case.
11. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent no.2 has argued that Patori had in fact executed a Will in favour of complainant-respondent no.2 wherein she has specifically mentioned that Ram Piari was her daughter and respondent no.2 is her grand-daughter born to Ram Piari. On the basis of that Will Saroj has filed civil suit in the court at Panipat which is pending. He submits that respondent no.2 has challenged the documents produced by petitioner to mislead the court regarding relationship of Ram Piari and Bhartu. Civil court on scrutiny of documents and evidence before it has concluded that Ram Piari was daughter of Munshi but the complainant has right to demonstrate by leading evidence before the criminal court that documents procured by the petitioners were forged and fabricated and pedigree table put forth by them is not correct.
12. The matter regarding relationship of Ram Piari, Bhartu and Munshi has already been decided in the Regular Second Appeal and no further special leave petition is stated to have been filed against the same. So far as the civil suit filed by complainant-respondent no.2 at Panipat is concerned, she has her separate claim on the basis of Will of Patori in her favour. At the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that once the relationship of Ram Piari with Munshi and Bhartu has been decided by civil court, the respondent no.2 was not competent to lodge FIR by raising same issue. In that FIR,she has pointed towards various Wills but the main issue is regarding inheritance of property owned by Patori and Bhartu, the 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:50:16 ::: Crl. Misc. No. M-13589 of 2013 -9- controversy regarding which has already been set at rest vide judgment passed in Regular Second Appeal bearing No. 2770 of 2004.
13. Keeping in view the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings in this FIR will result in misuse of the process of the court, as such the same cannot be permitted.
14. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-7) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.
15. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed in this petition shall be taken as opinion of this court regarding subject matter in civil suit filed by respondent no.2 which is pending.
July 05, 2018 (Surinder Gupta)
deepak Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 06:50:16 :::