Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amin Khan And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 December, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-22308 of 2010.
Date of Decision : 6.12.2012.
Amin Khan and others
...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sunny Saggar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
Quashing of First Information Report No. 31
dated January 31st, 2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered in Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra has been sought in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that initially, Rajwati-complainant got registered FIR bearing No. 216 dated November 28th, 2008 under Sections 420 etc. IPC in Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. The allegations in the said FIR were to the effect that the complainant along with her sister and mother was owner of land bearing Khasra No.56/1 (3-8) situated in village Chandan Haula Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi. On February 9th, 1997 one Brahm Singh in connivance with the petitioners executed a sale deed (Annexure R-1) in respect of the aforesaid land through Amin Khan-petitioner No.1 in favour of his wife Aamin Khan and son Iramn Khan-petitioners No.2 and 3 respectively as CRM M-22308 of 2010 (2) attorney. The mutation was also sanctioned in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3. The complainant challenged the sale-deed to be fabricated. Hence, the aforesaid FIR bearing No. 216 was registered at Delhi. Later on, the complainant got registered the present FIR bearing No.31 dated January 31st, 2010 under Sections 420 etc. IPC in Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
3. The solitary submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that registration of second FIR at Pehowa is in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which recognizes what is called double jeopardy. In other words, the argument proceeds that one cannot be prosecuted or punished twice for one and the same act constituting the offence. In the first instance, FIR No.216 was got registered in Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi and in respect of the same alleged act, the second FIR No.31 was registered in Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
4. This argument has been rebutted by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant who contends that the subject matter, that is, the acts complained of in the two FIRs in question are different and distinct and therefore, question of double jeopardy does not arise.
5. Counsel heard. Record over the file perused.
6. The protection granted under Article 20(2) of the Constitution is on the ancient maxim "nemo debet bis punire pro uno delicto", that is, no one ought to be punished twice for one offence.
7. The crucial question arising is whether the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners at New Delhi and Pehowa is one and the same or these are two distinct acts and offences.
8. It is the case of the complainant that on February 9th, 1997 one Brahm Singh in connivance with the petitioners executed a forged sale-deed in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 with regard to the land owned by the complainant, her sister and mother situated at New Delhi. The land is alleged to have been transferred CRM M-22308 of 2010. (3) by Brahm Singh through his attorney Amin Khan-petitioner No.1. When the complainant tried to find out the truth, she came to know that the sale deed was executed on the basis of forged General Power of Attorney dated August 12th, 1994 (Annexure P-4) purporting to be executed by Chandrawati and Raj Kishan mother and sister of Raj Wati-complainant of the land owned by them and the complainant in favour of Amin Khan-petitioner No.1. The General Power of Attorney was executed and got registered before the Sub-Registrar, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. Meaning thereby that on August 12th, 1994, in the first instance, the General Power of Attorney was forged and cheating was committed at Pehowa. Thereafter, on the basis of this forged document, sale deed was executed and got registered on February 9th, 1997 by Brahm Singh and the petitioners. In this way, it cannot be said that the offences committed by the petitioners are one and the same. Though, there is similarity between the allegations but the offences committed by the petitioners are distinct. They are in no way common. Therefore, the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution cannot be attracted. Thus, the argument advanced pales into insignificance.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is dismissed.
10. The observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of the present petition, and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits nor shall have any bearing at the time of final disposal of the matter by the trial Court.
6.12.2012. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE