CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 Date of Decision:22.11.2010 Smt.Santosh Rani and others ......Petitioners Versus Kuljit Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in this petition and emanating from the record are that, complainant-Kuljit Singh(respondent) son of Rajwant Singh, filed a complaint dated 28.04.2006(Annexure P-8), for taking cognizance against the petitioners-accused, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 and 120-B IPC in the trial Court. 2. The case set-up by the complainant, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, he was owner of the land in dispute, which he had purchased from its previous owner Karam Singh son of Karan Singh, vide registered sale-deed dated 31.03.1983. The original sale-deed was stated to have been lost and the matter was reported to the police vide report dated 13.09.2005 in this respect. The complainant and his wife initially appointed Santosh Rani-accused No.1 as their General Attorney on 23.10.2003, but thereafter since, she had lost their faith, so, the complainant and his wife cancelled the said power of attorney as such vide cancellation-deed dated 12.08.2005, with due intimation to her through telegram dated 13.08.2005. The fact of cancellation of the power of attorney was also published in the newspaper “Daily Jagbani, Jalandhar” on 19.08.2005. 3. The case of the complainant further proceeds that although the CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 2 accused were having full knowledge regarding the cancellation of general power of attorney, but she fraudulently sold the property of the complainant in the name of her own daughter Kanchandeep Kaur on 25.08.2005, in connivance with Manjinder Singh-accused, who is attesting witness of the sham transaction. The complainant moved an application to the S.P., Vigilance Department on 23.11.2005 in this regard, but no action was taken, as the police had hand in gloves with the accused. The complainant has attached all these documents with the complaint. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, concisely, the complainant claimed in the complaint(Annexure P-8) that they cancelled the power of attorney on 12.08.2005, but still Santosh Rani-accused cheated him and fraudulently sold the property to her own daughter Kanchandeep Kaur, in connivance with Manjinder Singh-accused, who attested the sham transaction. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the complainant filed the complaint(Annexure P-8) against the petitioners-accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. After taking into consideration the preliminary oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the complainant, the trial Magistrate summoned the accused to face the trial of the indicated offences vide impugned summoning order dated 30.05.2008(Annexure P-9). The operative part of which is as under:- “In order to establish these allegations against the accused persons, in its preliminary evidence, complainant himself stepped into witness box as CW1 and he proved each and every allegation of his complaint by narrating on the lines of allegations, so submitted in the complaint and also proved on record copy of police report Ex.C1, copy of general power of attorney Ex.C2, cancellation deed mark C, copy of application moved to police Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4, Ex.C5. Complainant also examined CW2 Sanjeev Sharma, deed writer, scribe of cancellation deed Ex.C1. CW3 Rajwant Kaur, Clerk, office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar who proved certified copy of CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 3 general power of attorney, cancellation deed as well as sale-deed being registered documents. After going through the complaint and the preliminary evidence as well as the documents adduced on record led by the complainant, prima facie sufficient grounds are made out to proceed against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/506 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, all the accused are ordered to be summoned to face trial before this Court for the aforesaid offences.” 6. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioners-accused straightway had earlier filed CRM No.M-22467 of 2008 for quashing the criminal complaint and the summoning order, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2008. Thereafter, the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed as well by the Revisional Court by virtue of impugned order dated 06.10.2010(Annexure P-11). 7. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P-11) and filed the instant petition for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-8) and impugned orders(Annexures P-9 and P-11), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 9. Ex facie, the celebrated arguments of the learned counsel that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant and were wrongly summoned by the Magistrate, wife of the complainant has executed a power of attorney(Annexure P-1) in favour of petitioner No.1-Santosh Rani and the complainant has also executed a Will on the same day and as the civil suit is pending between the parties, therefore, the complaint(Annexure P-8) and impugned orders(Annexures P-9 and P-11) deserve to be quashed, are neither CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 4 tenable, nor the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Inder Mohan Goswami and another Versus State of Uttaranchal and others, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 548 and of the Delhi High Court in case J.C.Mehra Versus Smt.Kusum Gupta, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 31, relied on behalf of the petitioners, are at all applicable to the present controversy. 10. In Inder Mohan Goswami and another's case(supra), the parties executed an agreement to sell, the land in question and the earnest money was received by the Sabha from respondent No.3. As per agreement, respondent No.3 had to pay another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Sabha by 31.01.1997. This amount was paid by respondent No.3 on 21.03.1997 and the balance amount had to be paid by 31.03.1997. According to the appellants, time was the essence of the contract and respondent No.3 had failed to pay the balance amount. Thereafter, the Sabha had sent a legal notice to respondent No.3 to fulfill his contractual obligations under the sale agreement and informed that if he failed to do so, the agreement to sell would stand cancelled and the amount paid as earnest money would be forfeited. The Sabha made several requests to the respondents to make the payment of the balance sale consideration, but they failed to do so. Having committed breach of his contractual obligations, respondent No.3 filed a criminal complaint against the appellants. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, it was observed that no criminal offence under Sections 420 and 467 IPC is made out. 11. Sequelly, in J.C.Mehra's case(supra), the property in question was sold to the respondent in the year 1993 by way of power of attorney. The Government recognised the power of attorney transactions as a sale in the year 1995 and introduced freehold conversion scheme to enable the power of attorney purchaser to have a direct conveyance in their favour. While interpreting the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act and Delhi Rent Control Act, it was observed that the property sold on the basis of such CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 5 power of attorney in the year 1993, was valid. 12. Hardly there is any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in this relevant connection. 13. As is evident from the record the complainant claimed that petitioner No.1-accused Santosh Rani fraudulently sold his land to her own daughter Kanchandeep Kaur by virtue of a sham transaction, with the connivance of Manjinder Singh, its attesting witness, after cancellation of the power of attorney and thus, cheated him in this relevant behalf. There are direct allegations of cheating and fraud assigned to the petitioners by the complainant. Moreover, all the essential ingredients of the indicated offences are complete in this respect. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith, at this stage, that the petitioners have been falsely implicated or there are vague allegations against them, as urged on their behalf. 14. Likewise, the mere fact that the petitioners have filed another complaint against the complainant party, ipso facto is not a ground to quash the present complaint and the impugned orders at this initial stage. 15. All the remaining indicated grounds and contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in this petition are factual in nature and can only be appreciated by the trial Court after evidence is led by the complainant during the course of trial. 16. Possibly, it cannot be denied that the scope of quashing the complaint/FIR, as contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not res integra and is well recognized. It is well settled proposition of law that in case, on the bare reading, the offences are made therefrom, no order can be made for quashment of the complaint/FIR. The complaint/FIR can only be quashed in the rarest of the rare cases, only if it is proved that the same were lodged maliciously or vexatiously in order to wreck vengeance and only in that eventuality, the complaint/FIR CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 6 amounts to abuse of process of the Court and not otherwise. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92 in this regard. 17. Not only that, even learned counsel for the petitioners has miserably failed to urge that the present case, in any manner, falls within the ambit of parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and Som Mittal's cases(supra). Therefore, the contrary contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 18. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. As is clear from the record that the trial Magistrate has rightly summoned the accused vide summoning order. The revision petition filed by them was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P-11). The operative portion of which is, as follows:- “The grievance of the complainant is that complainant received the entire sale consideration of plot in question and also delivered the possession to accused Santosh Rani. He also even issued the receipt and executed power of attorney which was irrevocable. Ld. Magistrate has simply relied upon the unproved cancellation deed. The counsel for accused further contended that even will was also executed on 23.10.2003 by the respondent that his children/heirs/claimants shall have no right in the property and the petitioner-revisionist No.1 will inherit the property. The perusal of order under revision and the record reveals that cancellation deed Ex.C1, which the revisionists are contending to have not been proved, was got proved by the complainant by summoning its scribe for the purpose of this complaint. If the power of attorney was cancelled, obviously the attorney could not execute the sale deed on the basis of said cancelled power of attorney. So far as the question of execution of the will and the receipt are concerned, the fact of that documents can only be determined during the trial, if those documents have been executed to avoid and circumvent the CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 7 provisions of Stamp Act and Registration Act. Those are to be looked from that angle also, but at the stage, it is to be seen whether there is any irregularity to infirmity in the orders of the ld. trial court or as to whether the trial court has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction, the complainant and the evidence adduced by the complainant as has been briefly discussed here-in-above reveals that the trial Magistrate rightly arrived at a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. No illegality or irregularity is found in the orders of the ld. trial court. Even the incorrect or wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the ld. Magistrate is also not made out. Thus, no ground is exists to intervene. Resultantly, without prejudice to the merits of the case, the revision is dismissed. Nothing stated here-in-above shall affect the merits of the case.” 19. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have recorded the valid reasons and rightly negatived the claim of the petitioners in this relevant behalf. Such well-articulated orders, containing the valid reasons, for taking cognizance of the indicated offences, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of the second revision petition (which is otherwise barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.) in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless the same are perverse or without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned orders. Thus, there is no ground to quash the complaint(Annexure P-8) and the impugned orders(Annexures P-9 and P-11), in exercise of limited inherent jurisdiction of this Court in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 20. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 21. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 22, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE CRM No.M-33995 of 2010 8