In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:27.9.2010 Hari Singh and others .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate for petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioners by way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) seek quashing of FIR No.77 dated 24.3.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station City, Rajpura, District Patiala for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) and further proceedings in pursuance thereof. FIR dated 24.3.2010 (Annexure-P.1), the quashing of which is sought has been lodged by Amarjit Kaur-complainant (respondent No.4). According to the complainant, her father Nahar Singh was earlier married to Isher Kaur, who died in the year 1966-67. Thereafter, Nahar Singh married Parsin Kaur. The complainant-respondent No.4 is the daughter of Nahar Singh through his second wife with Parsin Kaur. The other children, namely, Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh (petitioner No.1); besides, Jagir Kaur (petitioner No.6) are the sons and daughters respectively Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [2] of Nahar Singh through his first wife Isher Kaur. Nahar Singh died in the year 1969 and after his death the land was mutated in the name of Hari Singh, Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh (sons); besides, Jagir Kaur and Amarjit Kaur (daughters) and Parsin Kaur (widow) respectively of Nahar Singh. Later on, Parsin Kaur died and according to the complainant, she alone is entitled to the estate of Parsin Kaur. However, the land has been mutated in the names of Hari Singh, Jagir Kaur, Amarjit Kaur to the extent of 3/5 each share and to the extent 1/5 each share in favour of Harbans Singh and Harchand Singh (petitioner No.2) sons of Jagir Singh son of Nahar Singh. Moreover, it has been mutated in favour of Chetan Kaur (petitioner No.7), Chuhar Singh (petitioner No.3), Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.5), Harmesh Kaur (petitioner No.8), Kulbir Kaur (petitioner No.9), widow, sons and daughters of Hardial Singh son of Nahar Singh. In fact, they had full knowledge that Amarjit Kaur-complainant (respondent No.4) is the only legal heir and entitled to the share of Parsin Kaur which they knowingly got mutated in five shares. Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh filed a civil suit on 19.12.1983 claiming the estate of Prahalad Singh son of brother of their grand-father Dalip Singh on the basis of the Will of Prahalad Singh which was dismissed by the Sub Judge Ist Class Rajpura on 18.11.1993 (Annexure-P.2). Appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge, Patiala on 25.4.1995. RSA was dismissed by this Court on 4.3.1997. Thereafter, SLP/Civil Appeal No.7160 of 1997 was filed by Jagir Singh etc. in which a compromise dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-P.3) was recorded. In terms of the said compromise, a recital was made with regard to the compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) which is said to have been executed by Amarjit Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [3] Kaur (respondent No.4) which according to her was forged and she did not purchase the stamp papers and neither did she appear in the Court of the Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura. Besides, she never made any statement regarding relinquishing her share in the compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5). The forgery, it is submitted, is evident from the entries made in the Deed Writer's register and the stamp of the Deed Writer affixed on the agreement. According to the complainant, the Hand-writing and Finger-print Expert has also given an opinion that her signatures on the compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) do not tally with her standard signatures. The Police has also in their preliminary inquiry found that the allegations made by the complainant are prima facie correct. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the compromise deed dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) stands accepted in the civil suit which was decreed on 18.11.1993 (Annexure-P.2). Such a judgment and decree carries legal presumption with it and it is not open to the complainant-respondent No.4-Amarjit Kaur to challenge that decree and prove that the compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) was forged and fabricated. It is submitted that the Court would frame an issue in this regard and return a finding as to whether a compromise in the suit is genuine or not. Only in case if such a finding is recorded by the civil Court that the exhibit relied upon is forged and fabricated then and only then allegations could be made. It is submitted that compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) is signed by the complainant (respondent No.4). It is submitted that on 15.6.1992 itself, Amarjit Kaur-complainant (respondent No.4) and her mother Parsin Kaur entered into an agreement to sell dated Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [4] 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.6) in respect of the land measuring 18 Bighas 8 Biswas inherited from Nahar Singh to the sons and grand-sons of Nahar Singh for which an amount of `2,60,000/- and `65,000/- were received in advance as earnest money. In consequence of the agreement to sell dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.6), the complainant and her mother executed two sale deeds dated 4.1.1993 (Annexure-P.7) and 22.12.1992 (Annexure-P.8). Therefore, it is submitted that the compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure- P.5) was legal and valid and it is due to rise in land prices that there is a change in the mind of complainant-respondent No.4 to the relinquishment dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) made by her in favour of her brothers. It is alleged that the respondent-complainant No.4 in connivance with the Police had got the present FIR (Annexure-P.1) registered whereas the Police has no authority to register the same in view of the mandate of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the compromise is part of the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1993 (Annexure-P.2), therefore, unless it is held to be forged and fabricated by the competent Court of law, the registration of FIR is a sheer abuse of the process of the Court which is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that the allegation that complainant-respondent No.4 was only legal heir of her mother Parsin Kaur as she was full blood heir is baseless as the estate in the hands of Nahar Singh son of Dalip Singh was ancestral and all his sons and daughters were equally entitled to the same. However, in case the complainant has a better claim than her brothers then she was liable to challenge the mutation. Such a right being a complicated question of law can be gone into by the civil Court. Hence, sanctioning of mutation of inheritance of Parsin Kaur in equal shares in favour of the sons Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [5] and daughters of Nahar Singh, it is submitted, does not amount to commission of any offence. The FIR, it is submitted, is an abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The dispute in the case is with respect to the inheritance of the estate of one Prahalad Singh son of Rallu son of Khazan Singh. Prahalad Singh was unmarried and died without leaving behind any Class-I heir. According to the petitioners, the estate of deceased Prahalad Singh is to devolve upon his collateral, that is, the lineal descendants of Dalip Singh- the father's brother of deceased Prahalad Singh. Dalip Singh son of Khazan Singh had three sons, namely, Nahar Singh, Atma Singh and Nasib Singh. Nahar Singh had pre-deceased Prahalad Singh leaving behind his widow Parsin Kaur; besides, three sons and two daughters, namely, Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh (sons); besides, Jagir Kaur and Amarjit Kaur (daughters). The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Amarjit Kaur daughter of Nahar Singh son of Dalip Singh. The brothers of Amarjit Kaur are the accused in the case. The following pedigree table in respect of the parties may be noticed:- Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [6] Khazan Singh | ______________________________ | | Rallu Dalip Singh | | Prahalad _________________________ Singh | | | (Deceased) Nahar Atma Nasib Died in Singh Singh Singh August (Died in | | 1980 1969) | ____________________ | | | | | | | Gulzar Balwinder Gulzar | | Singh Singh Kaur | | (son) (son) (daughter) | | | ________________ | | | | | Tej Ram Sohan | Kaur Singh Singh |(widow) (son) (son) ________________________|______________________ | | | | | | | Isher Parsin Jagir Hardial Hari Jagir Amarjit Kaur Kaur Singh Singh Singh Kaur Kaur (wife) (widow) (son) (son) (son) (Daughter) (complainant- Died | | (Pet. (Pet. respondent 1966-67 ___________ | No.1) No.6) No.4) | | | Harbans Harchand | Singh Singh | (son) (son) | Lambardar | (Pet. No.2) | ___________________________________ | | | | | Chetan Chuhar Hardeep Harmesh Kulbir Kaur Singh Singh Kaur Kaur (Widow) (son) (son) (daughter) (daughter) (Pet.No.7) (Pet.No.3) (Pet.5) (Pet.No.8) (Pet.No.9) Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [7] The lineage of Rallu came to an end with the demise of Prahalad Singh leaving behind no Class-I heir. The estate of Prahalad Singh was to be inherited by his father's brother Dalip Singh. The three sons of Dalip Singh or their successors-in-interest, as the case may be, were to get 1/3rd share each. However, the sons of Nahar Singh, namely, Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh (petitioner No.1) filed a civil suit claiming that Prahalad Singh had executed a Will dated 20.6.1980 in their favour. Therefore, they claimed to be successors-in-interest of Prahalad Singh on the basis of the said Will. In the said suit, Nasib Singh son Dalip Singh and the successors-in-interest of Atma Singh son of Dalip Singh; besides, Parsin Kaur widow of Nahar Singh and Amarjit Kaur (complainant) daughter of Nahar Singh were impleaded as defendants. A compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) was reached at in the said suit between the plaintiffs, that is, the sons of Nahar Singh and their mother Parsin Kaur and their sister Amarjit Kaur-complainant, who were defendants Nos.9 and 10. Parsin Kaur and Amarjit Kaur-complainant (respondent No.4) relinquished their share in favour of the plaintiffs and entered into an agreement to sell 18 Bighas 8 Biswas of land which was their share in the inheritance of Nahar Singh to the plaintiffs. In any case, in the suit which was ultimately decided on 18.11.1993 (Annexure-P.2) as other defendants were still contesting, the Will dated 20.6.1980 executed by Prahalad Singh was held to be valid by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura vide his judgment dated 18.11.1993 (Annexure-P.2). However, it was held that the same did not relate to the suit land measuring 62 Bighas 10 Biswas. It was held that admittedly the suit land had been sold by Prahalad Singh vide sale deed Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [8] dated 3.11.1959 to Nahar Singh son of Dalip Singh. The said sale deed dated 3.11.1959 was challenged by the brothers of Nahar Singh, namely, Atma Singh and Nasib Singh sons of Dalip Singh. The learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura vide his judgment and decree dated 7.1.1961 held that the sale in dispute of the suit land would be null and void and ineffective qua the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs therein i.e. Atma Singh and Nasib Singh sons of Dalip Singh after the death of Prahalad Singh. It was held that the sale effected by Prahalad Singh was binding on him during his life time and it was to have no effect qua the reversionary rights of Atma Singh and Nasib Singh after his death. Therefore, the Will dated 20.6.1980 of Prahalad Singh, it was held, was not in respect of the suit land. The sons of Nahar Singh i.e. Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh (petitioner No.1) filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1993 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on 25.4.1995. Regular Second Appeal filed by Jagir Singh and another was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 4.3.1997. SLP/Civil Appeal No.7160 of 1997 was filed by Jagir Singh etc. in the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the said SLP/Civil Appeal, a compromise dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-P.3) was reached at between Jagir Singh, the successors-in-interest of Hardial Singh i.e. Chetan Kaur (petitioner No.7), Chuhar Singh (petitioner No.3), Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.5), Harmesh Kaur (petitioner No.8) and Kulbir Kaur (petitioner No.9) widow, sons and daughters respectively of Hardial Singh; besides Hari Singh (petitioner No.1) son of Nahar Singh on the one side and the successors-in-interest of Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [9] Nasib Singh son of Dalip Singh, the brother of Nahar Singh on the other. It was agreed that the dispute between both the parties to the compromise dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-P.3) was with respect to land measuring 62 Bighas 10 Biswas situated in Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, which was settled. In para 3 of the said compromise dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-P.3) it was recorded that Parsin Kaur and Amarjit Kaur, widow and daughter respectively of Nahar Singh had vide compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) given their 1/3rd share in the land measuring 62 Bighas 10 Biswas in favour of the first party i.e. Jagir Singh, Hari Singh sons of Nahar Singh and Chetan Kaur widow, Chuhar Singh and Hardeep Singh sons; besides, Harmesh Kaur and Kulbir Kaur daughters respectively of Hardial Singh son of Nahar Singh. The grievance of the complainant-Amarjit Kaur is with regard to the compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) a mention of which is made in the compromise dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-P.3) filed in the Supreme Court. According to Amarjit Kaur-complainant (respondent No.4), she did not sign the compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) and the same does not bear her signatures. Amarjit Kaur (respondent No.4) daughter of Nahar Singh son of Dalip Singh has filed the complaint the quashing of which is sought alleging that she came to know of the compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) has been referred to in the compromise deed dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-P.3) filed in the Supreme Court whereas she has never made such a compromise. The compromise (Annexure-P.5) submitted before the trial Court at Rajpura is forged and fabricated. Therefore, the accused had committed the offence of forgery for Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [10] which a criminal case is liable to be registered. It is alleged in the FIR that out of four brothers of Nahar Singh; Prahalad Singh was unmarried and without an issue. Nahar Singh son of Dalip Singh was earlier married with Isher Kaur of Village Surat Di Manoli, District Patiala. Nahar Singh through his wife Isher Kaur had three sons and one daughter, namely, Hari Singh, Jagir Singh and Hardial Singh (sons); besides Jagir Kaur (daughter). Said Isher Kaur died in 1966-67. After the death of Isher Kaur, Nahar Singh had a Karewa marriage with Parsin Kaur. From the said marriage between Nahar Singh and Parsin Kaur, one daughter, namely, Amarjit Kaur- complainant (respondent No.4) was born. According to the complainant- respondent No.4 Amarjit Kaur, she is the sole surviving legal heir of Parsin Kaur. Nahar Singh died in 1969. After his death, his estate was mutated in the names of Hari Singh, Jagir Singh and Hardial Singh (sons); besides, Jagir Kaur and Amarjit Kaur (daughters). Later on, Parsin Kaur died leaving behind only Amarjit Kaur (complainant-respondent No.4) as her legal heir. Amarjit Kaur (complainant-respondent No.4) was married at Village Kheri (Mullanpur), Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. As Hari Singh and others were residing at Village Ram Nagar, it is alleged that they got the mutation of the estate of Parsin Kaur in the names of Hari Singh (petitioner No.1), Jagir Kaur (petitioner No.6), Amarjit Kaur (complainant- respondent No.4) to the extent of 3/5 share each; besides, to the extent of 1/5 share each in the names of Harbans Singh and Harchand Singh sons of Jagir Singh. Chetan Kaur (petitioner No.7) widow of Hardial Singh, Chuhar Singh (petitioner No.3) and Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.5) sons of Hardial Singh; besides, Harmesh Kaur (petitioner No.8) and Kulbir Kaur (petitioner Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [11] No.9) daughters of Hardial Singh to the extent of 1/5 share each. It is alleged that in fact Hari Singh (petitioner No.1) and others had full knowledge that Amarjit Kaur was the only legal heir and entitled to the share of Parsin Kaur which they knowingly and intentionally got mutated in five shares without disclosing or calling Amarjit Kaur. It is also alleged that Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh sons of Nahar Singh had filed a civil suit on 19.12.1983 on the basis of a Will of Prahalad Singh. The suit, it is alleged, was dismissed on 18.11.1993 (Annexure-P.2) by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura. Appeal of the same was preferred by Jagir Singh etc. which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on 25.4.1995. A regular second appeal filed by Jagir Singh and another was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 4.3.1997. SLP/Civil Appeal No.7160 of 1997 was filed by Jagir Singh etc. in the Supreme Court. During pendency of the said SLP, the relatives of the parties requested for compromising the matter. Gulzar Singh was not available. After his death Hari Singh pressurized Gurdial Singh for compromising the matter without disclosing the true facts regarding the forged Will dated 20.6.1980 executed by Prahalad Singh in favour of Jagir Singh. Ultimately, a compromise was effected on 21.7.2003 (Annexure- P.3) in the Supreme Court. A perusal of the said compromise revealed that there was a recital of one forged compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure- P.5) alleged to be executed by the complainant-respondent No.4 Amarjit Kaur on stamp papers. It is submitted that the complainant-respondent No.4 Amarjit Kaur never purchased stamp papers nor appeared in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura in the proceedings regarding compromise. Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [12] Amarjit Kaur never made any compromise in the Court regarding relinquishing her share in the compromise. It is alleged that an agreement is shown to have been executed between Parsin Kaur and Amarjit Kaur on 15.6.1992. Forgery, it is submitted, is evident from the compromise and agreement dated 15.6.1992. In the register of Deed Writer, name of Swaran Singh is given at No.256 and No.257 was given to the compromise. However, in the stamp of Deed Writer, which is affixed on the agreement and compromise, No.257 was entered in the stamp of agreement and No.256 was entered in the alleged compromise. When Amarjit Kaur-complainant came to know that her signatures were forged by Jagir Singh by grabbing the share of Amarjit Kaur, she made an application for comparison of her signatures. On the said application, Navdeep Gupta, Hand-writing and Finger-print Expert gave his opinion that the disputed signatures marked as D-1 and D-2 were not written by the same person who wrote the standard signatures Mark S-1 to S-3. In this way, Jagir Singh etc. beneficiaries in connivance with each other by forging signatures of Amarjit Kaur got mutation of her share in their name and committed forgery. They are, therefore, liable to be prosecuted. As per Police proceedings, it was found on inquiry that 12½ Biswas of land at Village Ram Nagar was in the name of complainant- Amarjit Kaur's mother Parsin Kaur. After death of Parsin Kaur, Amarjit Kaur was the natural heir (full blood) of Parsin Kaur. Even Harchand Singh, Lambardar (petitioner No.2), who is a step-nephew of Amarjit Kaur complainant (respondent No.4) i.e. from second mother Isher Kaur being aware of the law at the time of mutation of inheritance of Parsin Kaur got Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [13] the pedigree table prepared and attested it without the knowledge of Amarjit Kaur. Mutation of land measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas pending in the name of Parsin Kaur was mutated on the basis of inheritance in the names of Hari Singh (petitioner No.1), Jagir Kaur (petitioner No.2), Amarjit Kaur and also legal heirs of deceased Jagir Singh, namely, Harbans Singh and Harchand Singh Lambardar (petitioner No.2) as also in favour of legal heirs of Hardial Singh, namely, Chuhar Singh (petitioner No.3), Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.5), Chetan Kaur (petitioner No.7), Harmesh Kaur (petitioner No.8) and Kulbir Kaur (petitioner No.9) and also compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) by making fictitious signatures of Amarjit Kaur- complainant (respondent No.2). The mutation of her land measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas was also got sanctioned in their name fraudulently. Hari Singh (petitioner No.1), Harchand Singh (petitioner No.2), Chuhar Singh (petitioner No.3), Harbans Singh (non-petitioner), Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.5), Jagir Kaur (petitioner No.6), Chetan Kaur (petitioner No.7), Harmesh Kaur (petitioner No.8), Kulbir Kaur (petitioner No.9), Teja Singh Lambardar (petitioner No.10) and Swaran Singh, Deed Writer (petitioner No.11) by forging the signatures of Amarjit Kaur and getting a wrong pedigree table prepared and thereby getting the land of Amarjit Kaur measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas and 12½ Biswas mutated in their name had committed offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The report was submitted for approval and for registration of FIR against them. The report was submitted by Shri Manmohan Singh, DSP, Sub Division, Rajpura which was sent for approval to SSP, Patiala (respondent No.2) who approved the same on the basis of which the FIR has been Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [14] registered. In the afore-noticed circumstances, it may be noticed that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is not to carry out the investigations of the case which is the domain of the Police authorities. The Police is to investigate the case and file its final report one way or the other. The process of investigation cannot be stopped or terminated at this stage. The same is liable to be gone into by the Investigating authorities. The compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5) is with regard to the estate of Prahalad Singh. The suit filed by Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh sons of Nahar Singh was for claiming the estate of Prahalad Singh son of Rallu on the basis of Will dated 20.6.1980 executed by Prahalad Singh in their favour. According to the petitioners Parsin Kaur widow of Nahar Singh and Amarjit Kaur complainant-respondent No.4 daughter of Nahar Singh, who were defendants No.9 and 10 in the said suit, had no objection if the suit was decreed in favour of Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh as they had relinquished their share vide compromise dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-P.5). It was recited therein that if they failed to honour the compromise (Annexure-P.5) then they shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages. It was also mentioned that they had entered into an agreement to sell 18 Bighas 8 Biswas i.e. inheritance of Nahar Singh of which they were owners in possession with the sons of Jagir Singh on 15.6.1992 (Annexure- P.6). It may be noticed that the said suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 2/3rd share minus 5 Bighas 5 Biswas of land already sold by Atma Singh to Amarjit Singh and the decree for permanent injunction Cr. Misc. No.M-19897 of 2010 [15] restraining the defendants from alienating the above said land falling to the share of the plaintiffs and further interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs except in due course of law was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The Will dated 20.8.1980 executed by Prahalad Singh in favour of Jagir Singh, Hardial Singh and Hari Singh, it was held that the same was executed but it was not regarding the suit land measuring 62 Bighas 10 Biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Rajpura. Prahalad Singh (deceased) had sold the suit land measuring 62 Bighas 10 Biswas to Nahar Singh vide sale deed dated 3.11.1959. As such, he was not the