Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbachan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 November, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-11768 of 2010 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-11768 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : November 01, 2012
Gurbachan Singh and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the State.
Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Gurbachan Singh, Ranjit Singh, Hari Singh, Lambardar and Sukhmander Singh, the petitioners, have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 19 dated 1.3.2010, registered at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot (Annexure P6) for an offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, as the FIR is an abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Crl. Misc. No.M-11768 of 2010 2 ..
Gurbachan Singh, petitioner No.1 had been owner of some land. According to him, he had two sons, namely, Ranjit Singh, petitioner No.2 and Manjit Singh, respondent No.2. He has further submitted that he, however, transferred his land in favour of his son, Ranjit Singh, petitioner No. 2 alone vide transfer deed dated 6.3.2009 (Annexure P4). According to him, there is no forgery involved in this case because the transfer deed (Annexure P4) has been executed by Gurbachan Singh in his own name as father of Ranjit Singh, petitioner No. 2 and it is attested by Hari Singh, Lambardar, petitioner No. 3 and Sukhmandar Singh, petitioner No. 4. He has submitted that this is not a case of impersonation also. According to him, at the worst, it can be said that the property in the hands of Gurbachan Singh was ancestral and he could not transfer the entire land in favour of one of his sons. He has submitted that even then the dispute that would arise would be of civil nature and no criminal case could be got registered in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the civil suit brought by Ranjit Singh against respondent No.2, Manjit Singh, the latter filed written statement on 4.11.2009 and has got registered this FIR as late as on 1.3.2010. According to him, the FIR is, therefore, an after thought.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the question as to whether the transfer deed is forged or not would require evidence for its decision and, therefore, the FIR could not be quashed.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted, on the Crl. Misc. No.M-11768 of 2010 3 ..
other hand, that the application for registration of the case was given to the police on 4.11.2009 and it is the FIR, which is registered on 1.3.2010 after due enquiry. According to him, there is no allegation of the petitioners that the land in question was not coparcenary property of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 2. According to him, a fraud has been committed by the petitioners because in the transfer deed it is mentioned that Gurbachan Singh has one son. According to him, this is a lie that appears in the transfer deed and it shows that the dispute between the parties is of criminal nature.
Referring me to the order dated 21.3.2012, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioners have filed an application before the court for his discharge. According to him, the challan has already been filed in the case and the petitioners have sought their discharge in the case before the trial court and, therefore, the petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed as such.
Gurbachan Singh, petitioner no.1 is claimed in the FIR to have land measuring 33 kanals and 18 marlas. It is common knowledge that in the revenue record, even the ancestral coparcenary property is recorded as owned by karta of the joint Hindu family. This is never recorded as coparcenary property because in a coparcenary, the shares are not fixed and keep changing with addition of a coparcener or with death of one. The complainant claims the said property to be ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Gurbachan Singh in which Ranjit Singh and the complainant, Manjit Singh have also been the Crl. Misc. No.M-11768 of 2010 4 ..
coparceners. It is true that the petitioners have not claimed any where that the property in question was self acquired property of Gurbachan Singh and was not ancestral coparcenary property.
Now, it can be said that Gurbachan Singh transferred ancestral coparcenary property measuring 33 kanals and 18 marlas in favour of one of his sons by way of transfer deed dated 6.3.2009. In the said transfer dee (Annexure P4), Gurbachan Singh has mentioned that he has got one son Ranjit Singh and wife Bhajan Kaur. He completely remains silent about the complainant, his other son in the document. So, his statement in the document that he has one son, Ranjit Singh and wife Bhajan Kaur is not true. However, the question that would still be there for answer is as to whether this statement on the part of Gurbachan Singh in the document would constitute any offence.
The document is a valid document in so far as it is executed by Gurbachan Singh by whom it purports to have been executed. It is executed in favour of Ranjit Singh in the presence of Hari Singh, Lambardar, petitioner No. 3 and Sukhmander Singh, petitioner No.4. So far as the execution of this document is concerned, it does not attract any offence of the nature of forgery. The question is as to whether by failing to mention about his one son, that is the complaint in the document, the petitioner No.1 or for that matter the other petitioners have committed any offence of cheating. In my opinion, the answer to this question would be in the negative.
At the worst, it can be said that the petitioner, Gurbachan Singh posing himself as exclusive owner of the property and ignoring his Crl. Misc. No.M-11768 of 2010 5 ..
other son, Manjit Singh (respondent No.2) has executed the transfer deed in favour of his one son. These facts do not attract offence punishable under the provisions of section 420 IPC because by executing this document, the petitioner, Gurbachan Singh or other petitioners have not cheated any one. The dispute that is raised is of civil nature in which the complainant can claim his share in the property or could seek quashing/setting aside of the transfer deed.
In this regard, I am supported by a decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2009 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 369, where the accused sold property of another person claiming himself to be its owner. It was held that in such a case it is the purchaser who has been cheated and not the owner of the property and the FIR lodged by the owner under section 420 IPC was held liable to be quashed. It has also been held in this decision that the offence of forgery under section 467, 471 IPC is also not made out by the accused selling the plot of land to the other person claiming himself to be owner and executing the sale deed in respect thereof.
In another case reported as G. Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P. 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 707, the accused had filed an application before the trial court for discharge. It was held that Magistrate could discharge the accused at any stage of the trial, if he considered the charge to be groundless. It has further been held that the accused could also approach the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. or article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceedings quashed when no offence has been made out. This decision answers the submission Crl. Misc. No.M-11768 of 2010 6 ..
made by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in pursuance of which he had claimed that the petition has become infructuous.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that this FIR is also an example proving that there is growing tendency of converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases because civil remedies are time consuming. Finding FIR No. 19 dated 1.3.2010, registered at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot (Annexure P6) for an offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC to be purely abuse of process of the law, I accept the petition and quash the FIR as also the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 01, 2012 som