Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hakam Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 August, 2010
Crl. Misc. No. M-8392 of 2010 {1}
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-8392 of 2010
Date of Decision:August 30, 2010
Hakam Singh and another
---Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another
---Respondents
Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
***
Present: Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr.Anter Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab
for respondent No. 1
Mr. Jasdev Singh, Advocate,
for Mr. Sanjiv Manrai, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2
***
GURDEV SINGH, J.
Heard.
Petitioners, Hakam Singh and Lachhman Singh, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code")for quashing FIR No. 578 dated 2.8.2008 registered under Sections 420, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code Crl. Misc. No. M-8392 of 2010 {2} in Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. It has been pleaded therein that their father Mukhtiar Singh, was the owner of the land situated in village Maina Patti, District Bathinda, and Mohinder Kaur-respondent No. 2-complainant, is his daughter. The land in the hands of the deceased was ancestral and coparcenary property and as per the custom the female heir had no right therein and as such whole of that land was inherited by them after the death of the deceased on 1.2.1971. Their relations with the complainant are very cordial and she had the knowledge of sanctioning the mutation in their favour and in favour of their other brothers and they are coming in cultivating possession of the land from the last 14 years. The complainant was the consenting party to the sanctioning of the mutation in their favour. However, on account of the rise in prices of the property, she became greedy and in the year 2007 filed a complaint before the police officials regarding the alleged fraud and the above said FIR was registered on the basis of that complaint. The mutation was got sanctioned in their favour on 20.9.1971 and the complainant remained silent for more than 37 years and that inordinate delay has not been explained. The matter is pending before the Civil Court as a civil suit had been filed by the complainant for declaration. The complainant also moved a petition for review of the order sanctioning the mutation but the same was dismissed by the Collector, Bathinda, vide order dated 17.3.2008. No offence is made out against them.
Initially, respondent No. 2 put in her appearance through her counsel but thereafter did not come present. Respondent No. 1 in its reply has stated that the allegation in the FIR against the petitioners is that their mother Gurnam Kaur with their connivance got recorded the false report Crl. Misc. No. M-8392 of 2010 {3} No. 26 dated 20.9.1971 in the Roznamcha of the Halqa Patwari and falsely stated that they were the only legal heirs of Mukhtiar Singh, deceased. The fact of existence of respondent no. 2 and her sister, Balbir Kaur was kept concealed and mutation was got sanctioned in their favour regarding the inheritance of the deceased, thereby depriving the complainant and her sister of their share in the land left behind by Mukhtiar Singh. Thus, Gurnam Kaur and the petitioners in connivance with each other committed the forgery for the purposes of cheating. Enquiry was ordered by the SSP, Bathinda, and was conducted by the In-charge, Police Post Civil Lines, Bathinda. After the enquiry, it was concluded by that In-charge of Police Post, Bathinda, that Gurnam Kaur and the present petitioners connived with each other and got entered and sanctioned the mutation regarding the inheritance of Mukhtiar Singh, deceased, fraudulently by giving false statements and evidence in the form of statement of Gurnam Kaur. That report was endorsed by the Officer In charge of Police Station Kotwali. After obtaining legal opinion of the DDA (Legal), Bathinda, the FIR was registered. During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the accused were arrested. Charge has already been framed against Gurnam Kaur and she is standing her trial before Sh. P.S.Rai, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. Gurnam Kaur by concealing the factum of existence of the complainant and Balbir Kaur, who are also the legal heirs of the deceased, transferred her share in the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners with a dishonest intention so that the complainant and Balbir Kaur, may not able to assert their right and claim any thing in that land. Gurnam Kaur and the petitioners were required to obtain the consent of the complainant and Balbir Kaur before getting the Crl. Misc. No. M-8392 of 2010 {4} mutation sanctioned in their favour. They fraudulently and dishonestly concealed their existence. The petitioners and Gurnam Kaur have committed the cognizable offences. Earlier the complaint had no knowledge about the fraud committed with her and when she came to know about that fraud, she made a complaint to the police.
I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that at the time of commission of alleged offences, petitioner No. 1 was only 12 years old whereas petitioner No. 2 was 15 years old. Being minors, they could not have entered into any such criminal conspiracy with Gurnam Kaur. The main allegations levelled in the FIR are against Gurnam Kaur herself and it was she who got entered the mutation regarding the estate of Mukhtiar Singh, deceased. It cannot be said that there was any mens rea on the part of the petitioners. He further submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR as the mutation was got sanctioned in the year 1971 whereas the criminal machinery had been put in motion in the year 2007 i.e. after the expiry of the period of more than 36 years.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioners connived with Gurnam Kaur for getting the mutation regarding the estate of Mukhtiar Singh entered in their names by concealing the fact that Mukhtiar Singh had also left behind two daughters, including the complainant, and they were also the natural legal heirs and also inherited the estate of Mukhtiar Singh. Evidence has been collected during the investigation that the petitioners got transferred the land in their favour by obtaining the collusive decree from the Civil Court against their mother. He further submitted that the petitioners committed a fraud by Crl. Misc. No. M-8392 of 2010 {5} collecting whole of compensation regarding part of the land, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, thereby depriving the complainant and her sister Balbir Kaur of their share in that compensation. According to him, the offences, as mentioned in the FIR, are clearly spelled out from the facts stated in the FIR itself and there is no ground for quashing the same.
It was not disputed by the State counsel that at the time the mutation was got entered, both the petitioners were minors. It is also not disputed that the report in the Roznamcha of the Patwari regarding the inheritance of the estate of Mukhtiar Singh, was got entered by Gurnam Kaur. It was she, who made a representation that Mukhtiar Singh left behind only herself and the petitioners as his legal heirs. The fact that the complainant and Balbir Kaur were his daughters and were also the legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was concealed by her. From the contents of the FIR, at the most it can be said that the present petitioners conspired with Gurnam Kaur for the commission of the offence of making false representation, in order to deprive the complainant of her share in the land left behind by Mukhtiar Singh.
The criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120-A IPC. As per that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done.-
(1)an illegal act, or (2)an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some Crl. Misc. No. M-8392 of 2010 {6} act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
The word agreement as used in this Section means a valid agreement. Such agreement can only be entered into by the persons who are not suffering from any disability and as such the petitioners, who were minors at the time of commission of the alleged offence, could not have entered into such agreement with Gurnam Kaur and as such it cannot be said that prima facie offence under Section 120-B IPC is made out against them. The alleged offences was committed in the year 1971. The State counsel has tried to take up the plea that the commission of that offence was not in the knowledge of the complainant and she immediately, after she came to know about the commission of the offence, made the complaint.
It is not disputed that the complainant herself filed civil suit against the present petitioners and others regarding the estate of Mukhtiar Singh. The copy of the plaint of that suit is annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-3. That suit was filed on 17.8.2000.. As per contents of para 22 of the plaint, the complainant came to know about the mutation just before filing of the suit. Thus, even if the complainant had no knowledge about the commission of the offence previously, at least she came to know about the same in the year 2000. Even then she kept silent for a period of seven years and came up with the present complaint in the year 2007. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, it is to be observed that this FIR suffers from delay and latches. The matter which had already become staled by the passage of time, the complainant has tried to reactivate the same by resorting to the filing of the complaint. This is just an abuse of the process of the Court. In order to secure the ends of justice, Crl. Misc. No. M-8392 of 2010 {7} it is necessary to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings qua the present petitioners.
Accordingly the petition is hereby accepted. The FIR and the subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed qua the present petitioners.
(GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 30, 2010 PARAMJIT