CRM NO.M-35354 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB OF HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM NO.M-35354 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 29.11.2011 Surjit Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present : Mr. P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S.D.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.83 of 2009 dated 06.04.2009 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station ‘B’ Division, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 05.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that no offence against the petitioner is made out. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the basic ingredients of Section 415 IPC, which deals with cheating, are not made out and therefore, offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC cannot be said to have been committed by the petitioners as there is no deceiving or cheating of any person fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person so deceived to deliver any property. Reference is made to Section 24 and Section 25 IPC where terms 'dishonestly' and CRM NO.M-35354 OF 2010 -2- 'fraudulently' stands defined. Further ground is that offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are also not made out against the petitioners for which the FIR is lodged for the simple reason that Section 464 IPC defines the making of a false document, which does not fall within the four corners as so mentioned in the FIR. Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the mere reading of the FIR would show that no benefit has accrued to the petitioners from the Will which is alleged to have been forged by them. Petitioner No.1 is father of the testator- Surpreet Singh and as per the Will, all benefits were to go to her daughter Asleen Kaur @ Mansha @ Gubba. Referring to the Will, he contends that petitioner No.1 Surjeet Singh Bamrah has been held to be her guardian and executor of this Will. Apart from this, there is no other allegation which would suggest that he would derive any benefit out of the Will, because of which the petitioner could be said to be involved in the commission or would commit such an offence. He further contends that there is no evidence on record, which would show that Will has been forged. The expert opinion, which has been obtained by the respondent- complainant is through a private agency and the same is not admissible in evidence in the light of Section 293 Cr.P.C. He accordingly prays for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner has forged the Will with an intention to obtain the guardianship of minor child. The basic intention is to misappropriate and take control of the property owned by his son Surpreet Singh. He accordingly submits that the offences are clearly made out against the petitioners. As regards the opinion of the expert is concerned, he contends that this matter is to be decided by the Court at the trial stage CRM NO.M-35354 OF 2010 -3- and with regard to admissibility of the said report. All the pleas, which have been taken by the petitioners, can be agitated by the petitioners at the stage when the charge is framed against them. Mere reading of the FIR clearly makes out the offences against the petitioners for which the FIR stands registered and challan was presented in the competent court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) and contents thereof would show that there are specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to misappropriation of various amounts of money(s) and the amounts fraudulently drawn from the insurance company apart from other allegations. It has been specifically stated that the Will has been fraudulently drawn and is a forged documents and for that reason a report of the handwriting expert has been relied upon to show that the signatures on the documents is not of Surpreet Singh. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of the expert, who is not a Government expert would not be admissible in the light of Section 293 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted at this stage as it is a matter which has ultimately to be determined and decided by the trial Court at the stage of evidence. At the present stage what has got to be seen is whether an offence as stated to have been committed in the FIR, the ingredients thereof are found or not. Section 415 IPC defines cheating. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to dilate in detail about this aspect lest it prejudices the interest of the petitioner because challan is not being looked into by the Court and it would be looked into when the charge is to be framed against the petitioner by the trial Court but the reading of the FIR do indicate such an offence to have been committed by the petitioner. With regard CRM NO.M-35354 OF 2010 -4- to offence under Section 464 IPC i.e. making of false documents, in the light of the allegations made in the FIR it cannot be said that the said offence is not made out merely because there is no dishonest or fraudulent act committed by the petitioner. In any case simply because no benefit has accrued to the petitioner on the basis of the Will at this stage would not be enough to bring it within the aspect of forgery or cheating as has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner. Dishonesty and fraudulent intention of an act does not mean an intention for causing wrongful gain to a person himself if it is intended to dishonestly take charge or control of or grab the property under the guise of a document which itself is included in the definition of 'dishonesty' which would also amount to fraudulently doing such an act where such fraud has been committed as in the present case. Mere reading of the FIR discloses commission of such an offence and therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. 29.11.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE