Criminal Misc. No. M-25977 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-25977 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision:4.03.2010 Santosh Rani @ Santosh Devi & Others ..............Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr.Abhishek Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioners Mrs. Neena Madan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana HARBANS LAL,J. This petition has been moved by Santosh Rani @ Santosh Devi, Satya Rani @ Satya Devi and Saroj Rani under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R.No. 35 dated 17.4.2007 registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar qua them. The facts in brief are that Shiksha Devi is the wife of complainant Kirpal Singh. She is co-owner in the land mentioned in false sale deed No. 1636 dated 20.12.2005. Shanti Devi one of the co-owner has since expired on 9.5.2003 at Indri. Shanti Devi wife of Sadhu Ram had inherited the property of her father Raja Ram. Therefore, she is recorded as such in the revenue record. All the accused persons in connivance with each other sold the share of Shanti Devi after her death on 20.12.2005 by Criminal Misc. No. M-25977 of 2008(O&M) 2 producing some other lady than her in the office of Sub Registrar, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. The accused Balbir Singh Lamberdar Radaur and Isham Singh put their signatures as witnesses identifying the bogus lady produced by all other accused for the registration of the sale deed. Thus, all the accused had common intention to commit the offence. In reply filed by the State, it has been averred that on receipt of complaint from Kirpal Singh, an inquiry was conducted and prima facie the commission of offences under Sections 465/467/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners as well as their co-accused. So, the case was registered. During investigation, the relevant record was taken into possession and statements of witnesses were recorded. All the allegations levelled by the complainant were found correct. On completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed in the court of the Ilaqa Magistrate on 4.10.2008. Thereafter, the learned trial Court framed charge against the petitioners and their co-accused on 14.11.2008 after hearing the parties. As such, this petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the petitioners eloquently urged that the most important ingredient of an offence is mens rea and absence of the same throws the prosecution's case over board. In the instant case, this sine qua non of an offence is lacking as far as the case of the petitioners is concerned. It has been authoritatively pronounced that unless a statute clearly excludes mens rea in the commission of offence, the same must be Criminal Misc. No. M-25977 of 2008(O&M) 3 treated as essential ingredient of criminal act to become punishable. The assertion in the F.I.R., is that all the accused persons with the active connivance of each other have also sold share of Smt. Shanti Devi after her death on 20.12.2005 vide sale deed bearing No. 1636 by producing some other lady in the office of Sub Registrar, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. A careful perusal of these allegations would lead to logical conclusion that the same is only qua vendors and the attesting witnesses. The petitioners have been unnecessarily embroiled in this case. The vendors Krishan Chand and Shanti Devi are son and daughter respectively of Raja Ram. Bimal Prasad and Rakesh Kumar are his cousins and grand sons of Raja Ram. Parkasho Devi is widow of Raja Ram. So, it would not be wrong to state that all the vendors are closely related to each other. The vendors and the identifying witnesses hail from the same village. That being so, they were the only ones who could have known the factum of death of Shanti Devi and that the person putting in appearance was an impostor. Thus, it can be safely presumed that only the vendors and the identifying witnesses had mens rea to commit the crime. In these premises, the F.I.R. qua the petitioners is liable to be quashed. To fortify his contentions, he has sought to place reliance upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Mayer Hans George AIR 1965 Supreme Court 722 and Nathulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 Supreme Court 43. To tide over these submissions, the learned State counsel pressed into service that during investigation, it surged to the surface on the dint of the statement made by the complainant Kirpal Singh that Laxmi Devi wife of Kishan Chand, resident of House No. 212, Hari Prashad Colony, Criminal Misc. No. M-25977 of 2008(O&M) 4 Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar was produced in place of Shanti Devi to get the sale deed registered. She further canvassed at the bar that the petitioners were very well aware that in fact some lady other than Shanti Devi has been produced to get the sale deed registered and that being so, no case is made out for quashing the F.I.R. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioners being vendees were not in a position to ascertain that in place of Shanti Devi some other lady is being produced for registration of the sale deed. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The view I am disposed to take is that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are unsustainable for the discussion to follow hereunder:- There is no gain saying the fact that the charge against the petitioners alongwith others has been framed by the learned trial Court. If the petitioners were aggrieved therewith, they would have posed a challenge to the same by filing a revision. In Manjula Sinha Versus State of U.P. and others 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 778 the charge-sheet was filed by the police and the charges were framed. The Apex Court held that “question of quashing F.I.R. does not arise.” The doctrine of caveat emptor contemplates that the buyer is obligated to inquire about the title of the seller. Thus, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have made certain inquiries as to whether the lady who has been produced as vendor is really owner of the land sought to be purchased. Admittedly, Shanti Devi the co-owner had breathed her last on 20.12.2005. In the case of Mayer Hans George(supra) it has been held that Criminal Misc. No. M-25977 of 2008(O&M) 5 “Mens rea in the sense of actual knowledge that act done is contrary to law is not an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 8(1) read with Section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.” In Nathulal (supra) it has been held as under:- “Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. A statute may exclude the element of mens rea, it is, however, a sound rule of construction which is adopted in England and also accepted in India, to construe a provision which creates an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it except where the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes mens rea. Of the question, whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredient of an offence, the mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is not by itself decisive. Only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated that mens rea may, be necessary implication, be excluded from a statute. The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof.” Adverting to the present one, the allegations against the petitioners are that they in active connivance with their co-accused got the sale deed executed by putting up Laxmi Devi wife of Krishan Chand in place of Shanti Devi deceased. Had they not been in such connivance with their co-accused, they would have certainly enquired about the identity of Criminal Misc. No. M-25977 of 2008(O&M) 6 Laxmi Devi. Sequelly, no mileage can be driven by the petitioners from the cases cited on their behalf. In Sanapareddy Maheedhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (1) Law Herald (SC) 101 it has been held by the Apex Court as under:- “The High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant.” Criminal Misc. No. M-25977 of 2008(O&M) 7 Harking back to the case at hand, as noticed supra, the allegations in the FIR reveal commission of the offence. Thus in view of Sanapareddy Maheedhar(supra) and Manjula Sinha(supra) no case is made out for quashing the F.I.R. As a sequel of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous, if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE March 4, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes