Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF ORDER : 7.9.2011 1. Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 Kamal Kishore Chopra v. State of Punjab and another. 2. Criminal Misc. No.M-1420 of 2009 Dalip Kumar Sareen(Advocate) & others v. State of Punjab and another. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Singh, Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri B.B.S.Teji, Senior D.A.G. Punjab. Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the complainant. MAHESH GROVER, J. By this common judgment I am disposing of Cr.M.Nos.4179 and 1420 of 2008, as they arise out of the same F.I.R. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing F.I.R. No.140 dated 24.9.2006 registered under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,120-B I.P.C. at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana. A prayer Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -2- has also been made for quashing all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The facts which need to be detailed herein are that three ladies namely Smt.Maya Wati wife of Ram Lal, Smt.Neelam wife of Ashok Kumar and Smt.Neelam wife of Bhushan Lal filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana under the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act primarily against the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana wherein they made a grievance that the Improvement Trust had made allotment of Plot No.632, measuring 500 sq.yds. to the Ludhiana Oil Expellers Cooperative House Building Society along with various other plots to enable the society to construct houses for its members. The land had been acquired by the Improvement Trust for the said purpose. The said Plot No.632 was allotted to these ladies and subsequently it was found that the plot was a non-existent site. They thus prayed that the Improvement Trust be proceeded against for deficiency of service. The complaint was accepted by the Forum vide its order dated 25.4.1996. The Improvement Trust filed an appeal which was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 4.12.1996. The order was upheld by the National Consumer Commission. Despite this, the order dated 25.4.1996 was not complied with by the competent authority and the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana was convicted by District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. This resulted in filing of revision petition before the State Commission in which the plea of fraud was raised. The revision petition was allowed by the State Commission on 4.6.1998 whereby the conviction of the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana was set aside on the ground that he was not impleaded by name as a party in the execution proceedings and thus, the order was incapable of being executed. However, the imposition of fine was Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -3- upheld. This resulted in filing of two revision petitions before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi challenging the order of the State Commission which were dismissed. SLPs were then preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were also dismissed on 7.8.2000. In this manner, the matter had attained finality and an alternate Plot bearing No.196-F was allotted by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana on 15.7.1998. It has been averred in the petition that Dalip Kumar Garg, Advocate who is practising in the courts at Ludhiana, filed a complaint on 24.9.2006 alleging that the plot bearing No.196-F in the 256 acres scheme known as Mahrishi Balmiki Nagar has been illegally allotted by the Improvement Trust by playing a fraud under the cover of the compliance of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana in favour of the three ladies namely, Smt.Maya Wati wife of Ram Lal, Smt.Neelam wife of Ashok Kumar and Smt.Neelam wife of Bhushan Lal. It was alleged that these ladies are closely related to Vijay B.Verma who initiated the complaint before the District Consumer Forum. It was further alleged that these three ladies had given false address at the instance of Vijay B.Verma. The contents of the F.I.R. (Annexure P-5) need be extracted here below :- “F.I.R. No.140, dated 24.9.2006 under Sections 419, 420,467, 468,471,120-B I.P.C., Police Station, Haibowal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (Punjab). Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Application for cancellation of illegal allotment of Plot No.196-F Maharishi Nagar, Ludhiana for registration of criminal case against guilty persons. Sir, it is submitted as under : The applicant is practising as an Advocate in District Courts, Ludhiana and he has already brought to the Ludhiana Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -4- Improvement Trust regarding illegal encroachment/ construction raised by Vijay B.Verma, Advocate etc. of hotel Marriott on Govt. Land regarding which F.I.R. No.6/03 has already been registered and now, the applicant has come to know that a plot No.196-F in 256-Acre Scheme known as Maharishi Balmiki Nagar has been illegally got effected by him from the Trust and coming to know this fraud I enquired in the matter of my own because public property worth crores is involved in this case and has been grabbed by Neelam etc. by getting implementing a decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi through District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana and in compliance with that order, the Ludhiana Improvement Trust allotted on Plot No.196-F measuring 500 sq.yds. situated in 256 acre scheme of the Trust known as Maharishi Balmiki Nagar, Humbran Road, Ludhiana in favour of three ladies namely Smt.Maya Wati wife of Ram Lal resident of 146 Dyal Nagar, Ludhiana, Smt.Neelam wife of Ashok Kumar resident of House No.2710 Vishavkarma Town, Link Road, Ludhiana and Smt.Neelam wife of Shri Bhushan Lal resident of House No.;154 - Indira Colony, Aarti Road, Ludhiana. In fact the lady namely Maya wife Ram Lal never resided in House NO.1048-Dayal Nagar, Ludhiana and this House No.1049 is owned by Shri Vijay B.Verma Advocate and his wife Smt.Sita Verma Advocate and at present Smt.Sita Verma along with her son is residing in this house. Smt.Neelam wife Shri Ashok Kumar also never resident in House No.2710 Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -5- Vishavkarma Town, Link Road, Ludhiana. The address given in the above referred case and in this power of attorneys rather she is residing in House No.232, Prem Nagar, Batala and the address of third plot holder namely Smt.Neelam wife of Bhushan Kumar given as House No.154, Indira Colony, Arti Road, Ludhiana is also fake and the address of this Neelam is Neelam Calender Corporation, Near Cinema, Improvement Trust Colony, Pathankot. The referred conspiracy in acting the plot allotted illegally from the Trust by giving fake names and fake addresses has been hatched by Vijay B.Verma, Advocate along with his companion Advocate namely Shri Ajay Chopra, Advocate and his brother Shri Kamal Kishore Chopra who is working as (Clerk) Munshi with Shri Vijay B.Verma and Shri Ajay Chopra Advocate is working as a junior advocate with Shri Vijay B.Verma since long. The above referred two allottees namely Neelam wife of Shri Ashok Kumar and Neelam wife of Shri Bhushan Kumar are real brother's wife of Vijay B.Verma, Advocate and third share holder of this plot namely Maya Wati wife of Ram Lal does not exist and in fact one Maya Wati wife Madho Singh resident of 2710 Vishavkarama Town, Ludhiana was a distant relation of Shri Vijay B.Verma, Advocate and the said Maya Wati wife of Madho Singh has already died in the year 1992 but in the papers of above said illegal allotment, this address of 2710 Vishavkarma Town, Ludhiana has been shown as residential address of Neelam wife of Ashok Kumar who never resided on the address. One Ram Lal was the real elder Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -6- brother of Sh.Madan Lal who was father of Sh.Vijay B.Verma Advocate and wife's name of said Ram is Suhag Wanti who is at present residing in 233 Gali No.1, Indira Nagar, Ludhiana. The above said address and names have been intentionally given wrong by Shri Vijay B.Verma, Advocate in pre-planned conspiracy and allotment in this case requires thorough enquiry being illegal false and got done by impersonation. The allotment of above said plot was made in the year 1996 but Smt.Maya Wati wife of Madho Singh who was resident of this Vishavkarma Town Ludhiana in the year 1992 and in order to grab this plot Vijay B.Verma Advocate got prepared a false power of attorney in the name of above referred three ladies in favour of his son Sachin Verma and he affixed photograph of one Smt.Suhag Wati in place of Maya Wati on the general power of attorney dated 6.10.1998 put signatures of that Suhag Wati in the general power of attorney whereas said Suhag Wati wife of Ram Lal whose photograph has been affixed on the general power of attorney as an illiterate lady and cannot sign in any language. I have come to know from reliable sources that Sachin Verma son of Vijay B.Verma in whose favour that general power of attorney dated 6.10.1998 has been raised is not having knowledge of that power of attorney which has been witnessed by Ajay Chopra Advocate and one Namberdar and this general power of attorney was got registered with office of Registrar, Ludhiana on 6.10.1998 by impersonation. Thereafter, another general power of attorney dated 10.8.99 was prepared on behalf of above Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -7- referred three ladies regarding the above said plot in favour of Kamal Kishore Chopra son of Shri P.C.Chopra resident of B- I/665-IB New Upkar Nagar, Ludhiana and in this special power of attorney, the address of above referred three ladies are same which was given in the general power of attorney dated 6.10.98 and the address of third lady namely Neelam wife of Bhushan Lal son of Madan Lal has been written as 43- B, Model House, Ludhiana but his address is also fake and the said Neelam wife of Bhushan Lal never resided on this address of 43-B Model House, Ludhiana and this address of 43-B, Model House, Ludhiana is residential address of one Sh.Dalip Sareeen, Advocate who is very close to Sh.Vijay B. Verma, Advocate who is also an accused with Vijay B.Verma Advocate in other grabbing case FIR No.6 of 2003 on which Hotel Marriott has been constructed. In the above referred special power allegedly given by Maya Wati bearing signatures of that Maya Wati has been witnessed by Vijay B.Verma Advocate and has been attested on 10.8.99 by Shri Rajvinder Kumar Notary Public, Ludhiana having registration No.1153 and the above referred facts clearly show that the said three allottees of plot are relatives of Sh.Vijay B.Verma, Advocate who mastermind in this case and he intentionally had given wrong and fake addresses of the said ladies for getting the plot illegally effected from Ludhiana Improvement Trust and in order to play fraud with the Trust and in order to grab public property Vijay B.Verma in connivance with his companions prepared general power of attorney dated 6.10.98 Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -8- in the name of that lady namely Smt.Maya Wati by impersonating her and affixing the photo of Smt.Suhag Wati on that general power of attorney and by letting the above said two power of attorneys attested by impersonating and both the above said attorneys are witnesses by Ajay Chopra Advocate Sh.Ram Saran, Lambardar and Sh.Vijay B.Verma Advocate whereas all the above said persons knew it very well name of lady named as Maya Wati is not Maya Wati but Suhag Wati. All the above referred fact show that Vijay B.Verma Advocate and his companions in order to get a valuable property from Ludhiana Improvement Trust prepared and forged fabricated documents/power of attorneys by impersonation and by playing fraud and on the basis of these forged power of attorneys and in connivance with officials of Ludhiana Improvement Trust and Vijay B.Verma Advocate got applied a plot worth crores from the Ludhiana Improvement Trust in the name of his close relatives in the name of fake persons. The said Trust is the custodian of the properties but officials of the Trust have not verified the identity of said false allottees and by doing all this, the above said persons have cheated Ludhiana Improvement Trust by playing fraud and has caused wrongful loss to the Trust and has caused wrongful gains to themselves by using the forged documents as genuine documents and by doing all this above said persons have committed offences under Sections 467,468,471,474,201, 120-B I.P.C. I have already moved an application before the Trust which shows that some Trust officials are also involved Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -9- in scandal. If the other plots allotted/got allotted by Vijay B.Verma then verify such like cases also can come to limelight.” It is this F.I.R. that the petitioner wants to be quashed by taking up the following pleas :- 1. That the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant Dalip Kumar Garg is false and a result of personal vendetta. 2. These very allegations of fraud were taken up by the Improvement Trust before the Consumer Forum and the State Commission which were negated by the findings recorded by the National Consumer Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, the F.I.R. which is on the same set of allegations, deserves to be quashed. 3. That a reading of the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any offence even if it is accepted that the ladies are related to Vijay B.Verma. The execution of power of attorney is merely an internal arrangement between them and no impropriety has been committed, leaving alone the commission of any offence. 4. That at best, it could have been these ladies who could have stated that they have been defrauded, but no such complaint has been filed by them and the Improvement Trust has nothing to do with the same. The Society who owns the plot, has not filed any complaint and it is only the society who could have been affected by the alleged wrong doling, as detailed in the F.I.R. 5. That Vijay B.Verma has been representing a client, who is involved in a marital dispute pertaining to the family of complainant D.K.Garg. Kamal Kishore Chopra, the petitioner in Cr.M.No.M-4179 of 2008 is said to be working as a Clerk in the office of Vijay B.Verma. Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -10- The matter was enquired into by the S.P., an I.P.S. Officer who concluded as follows :- “Vijay B.Verma in connivance of all others has committed this act of fraud and forgery and prepared forged documents and on the basis of those forged documents they got allotted valuable Plot No.196-F measuring 500 sq.yards in Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana from the Ludhiana Improvement Trust without making any payment of sale price of that plot either to the Ludhiana Improvement Trust to the Ludhiana Oil Expeller Cooperative House Building Society and by doing all this the above referred persons have cheated the Trust and the Society and has caused wrongful gain to themselves and has caused wrongful loss to the Trust and to the Society by committing forgery. All the original documents are required to be collected from concerned persons. So apparently the F.I.R. No.140/2006 u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B I.P.C. seems to be rightly registered at P.S.Haibowal, Ludhiana.” Learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the aforesaid findings recorded by the investigating agency, has stated that there is no occasion to quash the F.I.R. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is the Legal Advisor of the Society and it is for this reason that the Society has not filed the complaint despite the fraud having been played upon them. The Trust has, however, filed a complaint. It has further been contended that once the enquiry is complete, the F.I.R. could not be quashed, as the petitioner has got the remedy of raising all the pleas before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of the charge and that such a process could not be Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -11- bounded to technicalities. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on State of Karnataka and another v. Pastor P.Raju 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 859 to contend that the F.I.R. could not be quashed where the investigation is in progress. Reliance has also been placed on Lakhwant Singh v. Jasbir Singh and others 2008(5) R.A.J. 506 to contend that mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance and it is the material which is collected during the investigation which is of relevance. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa 2002(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 480. I have considered the matter at some length and heard the respective counsel for the parties. The fundamentals of the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has widely been debated and commented upon and as such the conclusions can successantly be set down as under :- In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :- “In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art.226 or under S.482 of Cr.P.C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -12- facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceeding and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -13- concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified.” The courts cannot quash the F.I.R. if it discloses the commission of offence and such exercise should never be undertaken to scuttle the investigation. The courts are also not to dwell upon the veracity of the allegations as this would amount to commenting upon the same without there being any effective mechanism with them to evaluate such a correctness or incorrectness thereof. If the aforesaid tests are applied to the facts of this case, then I am of the opinion that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the F.I.R. clearly discloses the commission of an offence and also for the reason that prima facie an enquiry has been got conducted by the S.P. who has concluded against the petitioner and established that a fraud has indeed been committed. At this stage, to quash the proceedings would amount to scuttling the entire investigation when prima facie there is suggestive material in the shape of an enquiry indicating the complicity of Criminal Misc. No.M-4179 of 2008 -14- the petitioner in the commission of a wrong. The plea that the complainant's bona fides are non-existent, pales into insignificance in the wake of the report of the enquiry conducted by the S.P. against whom no malice has been alleged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakhwant Singh v. Jasbir Singh and others 2008(5) R.A.J. 506 observed as under :- “When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance - It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person - The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” To the same effect, observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa 2002(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 480. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are held to be without any merit and are dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) September 7, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO