Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 12 November, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(i) CRM No.M-10513 of 2012 (O&M)
Surjit Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
(ii) CRM No.M-29401 of 2013 (O&M)
Surjit Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
Date of Decision: November 12, 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Sherry K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Varun Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr.G.S.Nahel, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of above-stated two petitions being arisen from same FIR.
First petition CRM No.M-10513 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner Surjit Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.91 dated 24.08.2003 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 VINEET GULATI 2014.11.25 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-10513 of 2012 and connected case -2- IPC registered at Police Station City Ghagga, District Patiala and all other subsequent proceedings i.e. final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 13.10.2011 arising therefrom.
Second petition CRM No.M-29401 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 20.10.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samana and order dated 11.07.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.10.2012 framing the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in case FIR No.91 dated 24.08.2003, has been dismissed.
In CRM No.M-10513 of 2012, it is mainly stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. It is also stated that perusal of the FIR reveals that the respondent No.2 got registered the present case against the petitioner and his brother Chhota Singh and his sister-in-law Champa mainly alleging that the petitioner has an affidavit about the death of wife of complainant and in said affidavit, it is deposed that she died on 05.05.1986, whereas, she had died on 25.08.1986 and the property of Banto went to her mother Smt.Vidya and thereafter Smt.Vidya had also died. It is further alleged that the petitioner in connivance with other accused has forged the Will dated 30.10.1993 on the bahi and got transferred the property left by Smt.Vidya in favour of his brother's wife i.e. Champa and thus committed fraud with the complainant. In the present case, after investigation, challan has already been presented and charge VINEET GULATI 2014.11.25 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-10513 of 2012 and connected case -3- has already been framed against the petitioner and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
Second petition CRM No.M-29401 of 2013 is for quashing of order regarding framing of the charge and also the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissing the revision.
Notice of motion was issued in CRM No.M-10513 of 2012 and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested this petition. CRM No.M-29401 of 2013 was ordered to be heard along with CRM No.M-10513 of 2012 and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent also contested this petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
It is mainly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and colour of criminal proceedings has been given just to harass the petitioner. It is further argued that validity of the Will is to be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of evidence and till then, the present FIR is abuse of process of the law.
This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that case is of civil nature, has no merit. The complainant alleged that the Will has been forged and the petitioner got the property transferred left by Smt.Vidya, in favour of his brother's wife Champa. The judgment passed by the Civil Court is not binding on the criminal Court. Furthermore, it is now settled law that criminal proceedings VINEET GULATI 2014.11.25 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-10513 of 2012 and connected case -4- can also go on side by side with the civil proceedings. The criminal Court need not to wait till the decision of the civil case. Further, in the present case, after the completion of the investigation, challan has already been presented and charge has already been framed by finding prima facie case, which means that the Court has already taken the cognizance. At this stage, without any evidence, in no way, it can be held that a false FIR has been got registered against the petitioner or the registration of FIR, in any way, amounts to abuse of the process of the law.
Learned counsel for the respondent, at the time of arguments, has argued that civil suit filed by Manjit Singh and Jasvir Kaur against Champa and Surjit Singh etc. has already been decreed vide judgment dated 11.05.2012 and appeal filed against that judgment, has also been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 15.04.2014, which means that Will in question has not been relied upon by the lower Court. Furthermore, learned lower Court finding prima facie case framed the charges against the petitioner. A revision was filed, which was also dismissed. No illegality has been pointed out in the orders passed by learned Courts below while framing the charges against the petitioner as well as while dismissing the revision. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is only to see whether prima facie case is made out from the material placed on record along with report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. The Court, at this stage, is not to weigh the evidence for the purpose of conviction.
VINEET GULATI2014.11.25 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-10513 of 2012 and connected case -5- In view of the allegations regarding forgery of the Will against the petitioner, prima facie case is made out for framing of the charge. In no way, it can be held that it is a case of no evidence. Even if, the Court feels that there is strong suspicion, even then, charge can be framed.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the orders passed by learned lower Courts are correct and as per law and do not require interference from this Court.
Therefore, finding no merit in both the petitions, the same are dismissed.
November 12, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
VINEET GULATI
2014.11.25 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh