1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Smt. Parwati Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1637/2009) Date of Order :- 07th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Praveen Jain, for the petitioners. Ms.Alka Bhatnagar, public prosecutor. Mr.V.S. Gurjar, for the respondent. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR, FIR No.131/2009, registered at Police Station Baroni, District Tonk for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. The brief facts the case are that complainant- respondent No.2, Phuma filed a written complaint before the A.C.J.M., Niwai against the petitioners as well as one Rameshwar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. According to complainant, by misrepresentation, her signature was obtained on blank papers by the petitioner, Kajod. Using the said papers, Kajod executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother-in-law, Rameshwar in regard to land in dispute on 18.04.2009. She further stated that on 04.05.2009, Remeshwar executed a registered sale-deed in favour of Parwati Devi, who is Kajod's wife, in regard to land in question. The said complaint was sent for investigation under 2 Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Baroni, District Tonk. The Police Station Baroni, has registered FIR, FIR No.131/2009 against the petitioners and Rameshwar for the offences mentioned above. The complainant also filed a civil suit for cancellation of power of attorney dated 18.04.2009 and registered sale deed dated 04.05.2009 before the District Judge, Tonk. Since the complainant did not submit the requisite court fee, the said suit was not registered and is still lying in defect. On 21.05.2009, Surji, Mathura and Devli, they are the step-daughters of Smt. Phuma, have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before SDO, Niwai against the petitioners, Kajod and Parwati Devi as well as Phuma, Rameshwari and Tehsildar, Niwai. In the plaint it was pleaded that land in dispute belongs to Ram Niwas. However, after the death of Ram Niwas the revenue authorities entered a mutation No.257 on 06.06.1992 in favour of Phuma only. It was also pleaded that power of attorney dated 18.04.2009 executed by Phuma in favour of the Rameshwar and sale deed dated 04.05.2009 executed by Rameshwar in favour of Parwati Devi may be declared as null and void against the plaintiffs. According to the petitioners, the revenue authorities had rightly executed the mutation in favour of the complainant Phuma after the death of her husband, Ram Niwas on 3 06.06.1992. But, Surji, Mathura and Devli never challenged the mutation dated 06.06.1992 before executing the power of attorney and sale deed. Phuma was not having any issue from Ram Niwas. Surji, Mathura and Devli are not the daughter of Ram Niwas. The complainant Phuma had performed a Nata marriage from one Ram Swaroop and Surji, Mathura and Devli are the daughter of Ram Swaroop. Therefore they have no right to the land in dispute. Mr. Praveen Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that already there are civil proceedings pending between the petitioners and the complainant, Smt. Phuma for cancellation of the power of attorney – the document in dispute. Therefore, while civil proceedings are pending, a criminal proceedings cannot be initiated. Thus, the police should not investigate the FIR. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 2006 SC 2780]. Secondly, complaint filed by Smt. Phuma is malafide. In fact, it is Phuma who is cheating the petitioners. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Gurjar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has contended that according to the complainant, petitioner No.2, Kajod had informed the complainant that there is a pension scheme for widowed lady; 4 he had taken her to an office and asked her to sign on blank papers. But, it turns out that she being an illiterate lady, she had put her thumb impression on the power of attorney, which was in fact given in the name of Rameshwar, who is none other then Kajod's brother in law. Secondly, Rameshwar sold the land, belonging to the complainant, to Smt. Parwati Devi, the petitioner No.1, who also happens to be the wife of Kajod. Thus, in a surreptitious manner, while Phuma has been deprived by her property, a property has been sold to Kajod's wife Smt. Parwati Devi, petitioner No.1. Hence, a prima facie case does exist against the petitioners. He has further contended that at the initial stage, the investigation should not be throttled by this Court. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the case of T. Vengama Naidu Vs. T. Dora Swamy Naidu & Ors. [(2007)12 SCC 93]. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that investigation happens to be the realm of the investigating agency. Ordinarily, the judiciary should not interfere with an investigation. Merely because civil proceedings are pending, it would not pre-empt a person from initiating a criminal proceeding. In the present case, certain allegations have been levelled against the accused-petitioners. The allegation relates to the fact that the power of attorney was prepared by the 5 petitioners through a misrepresentation and while keeping the complainant in the dark. Thus, the said power of attorney was not given by free consent or by free will, but was given under a misconception. The allegation prima facie is that wrongful loss has been caused to respondent No.2 while wrongful gain has been caused to petitioner No.1. Since prima facie a case does exist, there is no reason for this court to interfere with the investigation. Secondly, merely because a criminal complaint has been filed in a malafide basis, it would not empower the court to interfere with the investigation. It is true that in the case M/s Indian Oil Corporation (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal case is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that the civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. However, the said observation does not lay down a universal principle that in case of civil proceeding, the criminal machinery cannot be initiated. Therefore, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case. For the reasons stated above, the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-