Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandan Singh Malhi vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM No. M-11669 of 2012 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-11669 of 2012
Date of decision: 25.04.2012
Chandan Singh Malhi
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Present:- Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.
----
RITU BAHRI, J This is petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 33 dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-5) under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar and order for framing charges under Sections 120-B/420/465/467/468/471 IPC dated 09.12.2011.
Brief facts of the case are that the FIR No. 33 dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-5) under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar has been registered on the statement of Charanjit Singh son of Jarnail Singh to the effect that his maternal uncle Najar Singh son of Ganga Singh is residing in Canada since 1972. He has not returned to India since then. On 13.01.1984, his maternal uncle Najar Singh changed his name to be Suramjit Singh Dharambir Singh Sumal and the complainant (Charanjit Singh) is attorney of his maternal CRM No. M-11669 of 2012 -2- uncle. One Chandan Singh Malhi son of Ram Singh has purchased a land belonging to Najar Singh by impersonating someone else to be Najar Singh in connivance with one Gian Chand son of Ram Sharan Adharmi and Ajit Singh by making them witnesses to the said agreement to purchase land measuing 34 kanals. Neither Najar Singh has visited India nor he has appointed any person to be his attorney. The aforesaid persons forged bogus ration card and identity card and committed fraud against them.
Pursuant to this FIR, investigation has been carried out. After investigation by the SHO, Police Station Phillaur, charges have been framed vide order dated 09.12.2011 (Annexure P-12).
Counsel for the petitioner is challenging the FIR as well as the order of framing charges in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "2009 (4) RCR (4) Criminal 369, Mohd. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar". His main argument is that an FIR under Section 420 IPC cannot be lodged by the owner against the accused. It is the purchaser who has been cheated by other person claiming to be the owner and executing the sale deed. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as in that case it was held when a document is executed by a person claiming to be the owner though he is not the owner and he is not impersonating the owner. It cannot be treated as a false document. The document is not false as contemplated under Section 464 IPC neither it can be treated as a case of forgery under Section 467 IPC. To constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person, deceived to deliver any CRM No. M-11669 of 2012 -3- property to any person or to make, alter or destroy wholly or any part of a valuable security. When a sale deed is executed by a person claiming to be the owner of the property, it is the purchaser who can lodge a false representation. After the registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out and it was found that the ration card was made in the name of fictitious Najar Singh and as per the report from the District Food and Supply Controller, Ludhiana, there was no record of this ration card. The two witnesses of the agreement to sell, Ajit Singh and Gian Chand denied the signatures on the agreement to sell but as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh the same bears the signatures of Ajit Singh. Thereafter he has been arrested. The petitioner-accused had executed the sale deed dated 02.02.2008 with the help of two witnesses Gian Chand and Ajit Singh projecting himself to be a vendee and by projecting somebody else as Najar Singh. Najar Singh, as per the investigation, did not carry any ration card nor he has visited India after 1972. The question of payment of Rs.5.00 lacs as earnest money by the petitioner does not arise. The case of the petitioner is that he has been defrauded as he has paid Rs.5.00 lacs and he was made to believe that the voter identity cards and ration cards were correct as projected by the witnesses Ajit Singh and Gian Chand. The FIR was registered on 18.02.2008. If the case of the petitioner is accepted that he had been defrauded by someone who had projected himself to be Najar Singh, It was the petitioner who should file a civil suit/criminal case to recover his amount of Rs.5.00 lac, which has been paid as earnest money. CRM No. M-11669 of 2012 -4- From the body of the petition, no such averment is made out. It is not believable that after executing the agreement to sell on 02.02.2008 and making payment of Rs. 5.00 lacs, the petitioner kept quite. The investigation was carried out which clearly makes out a case of forgery against the petitioner as there is no ration card in the name of fictitious Najar Singh.
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383 this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various provisions of Criminal Procedure Code has laid down principles of law relating to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The parameters laid down are as under:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. CRM No. M-11669 of 2012 -5- (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurt and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding CRM No. M-11669 of 2012 -6- is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
There are some disputed questions of facts which can be gone into during the period of trial and as such, no case is made out to quash the FIR.
Dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 25, 2012 sham