Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 Date of Order: 1st July, 2009 Capt. Mohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. J.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1-State. Mr. P.S.Brar, Advocate for respondent no.2. RAJIVE BHALLA, J Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of FIR No.475, dated 03.12.2007, registered under Sections 406/ 420/ 465/ 467/ 468/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Faridkot. A brief reference to the facts would be necessary: Balwinder Singh son of Singhara Singh filed Civil Suit No.01, dated 02.01.2007 against Sakandar Singh (the complainant) for recovery of Rs. 50,000/-, on the basis of a pronote allegedly signed by the complainant and attested by the petitioner Capt. Mohan Singh, as witness. Sakandar Singh contested this suit and Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 -2- denied the execution of the pronote. It was pleaded that the complainant is a small marginal farmer who sells his produce at the petitioner's shop and from time to time raised loans from the petitioner. He was made to sign on blank pronotes. Eventually when a dispute arose between them, a compromise was effected at Police Post Golewala, where the complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to Capt. Mohan Singh, the petitioner. However, the blank pronotes and the receipts bearing his signatures were not returned and instead the petitioner manipulated these blank documents and filed a suit through Balwinder Singh. The Civil Court decreed the suit and upheld the execution of the pronote. During the pendency of the suit, Sakandar Singh lodged a complaint, with the police, setting out the aforementioned facts. The complaint led to the registration of the present FIR. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the civil Court's judgment, upholding the legality of the pronote, the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed. It is further argued that as on the same material i.e. the pronotes, the allegation of fraud, the allegations that signatures were obtained on blank papers and pursuant to a compromise a payment of Rs.40,000/- was made, the civil court has already recorded an opinion that the pronote is legal and valid, these findings would prevail over the proceedings pending before the criminal Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a mere attesting witness to the pronote and therefore, the present petition be allowed and the FIR, being an abuse of the process of law, be quashed. Counsel for the State of Punjab and counsel for the Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 -3- complainant on the other hand submit that the findings recorded by the civil court are irrelevant as the petitioner is not a party to the suit. The suit has been filed by Balwinder Singh and therefore, the allegations in the FIR cannot be said to have been adjudicated by the civil court. Even otherwise, while considering the pronote the civil court exceeded its jurisdiction in commenting upon the FIR as after investigation, the police has found a prima facie case against the petitioner and based upon the final report filed by the police, the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed and it be left to the jurisdiction of the trial court to consider the effect of the civil court's judgment. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a money lender/a commission agent, who has duped the complainant by getting him to sign on blank pronotes and receipts. The petitioner, in order to deflect any blame, has filed the suit in the name of Balwinder Singh. As the petitioner is not a party to the civil suit, he has no right to pray for quashing of the FIR. I have heard counsel for the parties, considered their arguments, perused the FIR and the judgment dated 27.05.2008 recorded by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot in civil suit No.01, dated 02.01.2007 titled as Balwinder Singh vs. Sakandar. Before proceeding to examine the nature of the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention that investigation is complete, the final report has been filed and charges have been framed against the petitioner. A salutory principle that governs the exercise of inherent power is that where the trial court, has proceeded to frame charges, the High Court Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 -4- would generally desist from quashing the FIR. As referred to in the narrative of facts, the civil court has decreed the suit and upheld the validity of the pronote. However, the suit has been filed by one Balwinder Singh and not by the petitioner. In order to deal with the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to appraise the civil court's judgment and reproduce a relevant extract thereof:- "The defendant further brought on record copy of FIR No.475 dated 03.12.2007 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, Police Station City Faridkot, which was proved by DW1 HC Nirmal Singh of P.S. City Faridkot. Perusal of this FIR shows that it was registered against the plaintiff Balwinder Singh as well as PW1 Darshan singh and Captain Mohan Singh, attesting witnesses of the pronote and receipt in question, on the basis of an application filed by the defendant. As per this document the defendant had dealing with Kaptan Trading Company, Faridkot, a commission agent firm of Captain Mohan Singh and a dispute arose after some time. Blank pronotes bearing signatures of the defendant were already obtained by the said commission agent. An application was filed by the said commission agent at police post Golewala, where the matter was compromised for Rs.40,000/- and the compromise was reduced into Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 -5- writing. Defendant paid Rs.40,000/- to Captain Mohan Singh, but he did not return the blank pronote and receipt bearing signatures of the defendant and thereby cheated him. However, in order to prove the facts recorded in the FIR Ex.D1 as well as stated by DW-2 Sakandar Singh defendant, no evidence was brought on record by the defendant. Neither the said compromise which was reduced into writing was brought on record by the defendant nor the defendant examined any witness to the said compromise. Further the defendant did not examine any witness for the purpose of corroboration of his plea. Merely on the basis of registration of FIR Ex.D1 it cannot be presumed that plea of the defendant is correct. It is worth mentioning here is that FIR Ex.D1 was registered during the pendency of this suit i.e. on 03.12.2007. So, merely on the basis of registration of FIR Ex.D1 it cannot be presumed that pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents or are the result of fraud. Even otherwise, the facts recorded in FIR, Ex.D1 corroborate the case of the plaintiff to the effect that the defendant owed Rs.40,000/- to the plaintiff, regarding which the pronote and receipt in question were executed. The above discussed evidence brought on record by the plaintiff duly proved the borrowing of loan Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 -6- and execution of pronote and receipt in question by the defendant. The defendant has miserably failed to prove on record that the pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated documents or are the result of fraud. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal loan amount from the defendant alongwith interest." At this stage, it would also be necessary to refer to the contents of the FIR, which read as follows :- " To the SSP Faridkot regarding filing of illegal case by Capt. Mohan singh, Commission Agent. Sir, it is requested before some time I, was doing business with Captain Mohan Singh (capt. Trading Co. Faridkot) I was taking money fertilizer spray from him according to my need. He has kept signature on vacant pronote for the purpose of guarantee. After some time our difference was appeared on some point and he has filed an application before Police Chowki Golewala regarding taking of money from me, whereas compromise was effective for the said dispute for Rs.40,000/- and I have given Rs.40,000/- in cash to him in the presence of some respectable persons whereas Capt. Mohan Singh has done written compromise that there is nothing due towards me. He has also admitted that he will return the vacant pronote to him. But after some Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 -7- time he has filed Rs.40,000/- on the said pronote and Balwinder Singh son of Shingara Singh resident of Faridkot filed case against me which is totally illegal, I have attached the copy of pronote along with the compromise is attached alongwith the complaint. It is therefore requested I may be given justice, and action be taken against the accused Commission Agent. I would be thankful to you. Sd/- Sakandar Singh son of Mithu Singh (L.T.I.) r/o Bhugiana Faridkot) dated 28.11.2007." A perusal of the FIR, leaves no manner of doubt that a prima facie case of forgery and fraud is made out against the petitioner. The complainant alleges that the petitioner is a commission agent. The complainant, who is a small farmer, raised loans from the petitioner but was made to sign on blank pronotes. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the complainant with respect to these pronotes. The complainant paid Rs.40,000/- by way of a compromise but the petitioner refused to return the pronotes and the receipts and instead got a civil suit filed through Balwinder Singh, as the principal creditor. It would be necessary to mention here that the petitioner is not a party to the civil suit and therefore, the allegations levelled against him, in the FIR, were not adjudicated in the civil suit. Even if, the civil court chose to comment upon the FIR or as the petitioner is not a party to the civil suit, the observations in the said judgment are irrelevant, as they relate to Balwinder Singh and not to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said Criminal Misc. No.M-30991 of 2008 -8- with any degree of certainty that the matters in dispute before the civil court and the criminal court are absolutely identical and would, therefore, necessarily require quashing of the FIR. It would be necessary to mention here that after investigation, the police have filed a final report before the trial court, indicting the petitioner. Charges have been framed and the trial is in progress. The petitioner has however, failed to impugn the final report or the order framing charges. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, I find no reason in the exercise of inherent powers to quash the FIR and consequently dismiss the present petition. However, nothing stated herein shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. July 1st, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE