IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 133 of 2011 Judgment reserved on : 02.11.2011. Date of decision: 0 5.12.2011. Devinder Chauhan and another …. Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the Petitioners : Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For the Complainant : Mr. Satpal Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.B.C.Negi, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioners have filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 18 dated 22.3.2011 registered at Police Station, Kumarsain, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the petition that Jai Chand, Panna Lal and Purshotam Dass brothers were owners of land at Kotgarh, Tehsil Kumarsain. All the three brothers have died. On the death of Jai Chand on 21.7.2006 he was succeeded by his only daughter Smt.Parmod Kumari. Panna Lal died in the year 1971, petitioner No.2 _____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 Sunil Kumar is the son of Panna Lal. Purshotam Dass died many years ago. On the deaths of Jai Chand, Panna Lal and Purshotam Dass, their heirs have succeeded them. 3. Jai Chand sold his house in Ambala City in the year 2004 in favour of Smt. Anita wife of petitioner No. 2 for a sum of ` 6,00,000/-, civil litigation with respect to this transaction between Smt. Parmod Kumari daughter of Jai Chand and Smt. Anita is already pending. 4. Jai Chand entered into an agreement for sale of the land of his share at Kotgarh with Devinder Chauhan, petitioner No. 1 on 26.6.2006 at Ambala in the presence of witnesses Dr. Ashok Kumar Goel and Karnail Singh. Bhupinder Singh, deed writer scribed the agreement for sale. Jai Chand agreed to sell the land of his share at Kotgarh for a sum of ` 1,90,500/- in favour of petitioner No.1. It has been stated that petitioner No. 1 had paid ` 1,70,000/- to Jai Chand and the balance amount of ` 20,500/- was agreed to be paid on or before 26.7.2006. 5. Jai Chand had suffered paralytic attack, he was not keeping good health. On 16.6.2006 Jai Chand executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No.2. On the basis of agreement for sale dated 26.6.2006 and General Power of Attorney petitioner No.2 executed a sale deed on 5.7.2006 transferring the share of Jai Chand in favour of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 also received balance sale consideration of ` 20,500/- from petitioner No.1 and sale deed was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kumarsain on 5.7.2006. 3 6. Smt. Parmod Kumari is the only legal heir of late Jai Chand, she was not having cordial relations with her father and, therefore, she was disinherited and disowned by Jai Chand, a public notice to this effect was published in daily ‘Dainik Tribune’ dated 6.7.2006. 7. Smt. Parmod Kumari did not dispute the validity of the sale deed dated 5.7.2006 on the basis of agreement dated 26.6.2006. On the basis of sale deed dated 5.7. 2006 mutation was also entered and attested in favour of petitioner No.1, who is owner in possession of the land in question since 5.7.2006. 8. Smt. Parmod Kumari for the first time lodged FIR No. 18 of 2011 in Police Station, Kumarsain on 22.3.2011 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC alleging that when she had gone to Kotgarh in connection with attestation of mutation of inheritance of Jai Chand in her name, she came to know that share of Jai Chand had already been transferred in the name of petitioner No.1 in the year 2006. Smt. Parmod Kumari mis-represented the facts in FIR No. 18 of 2011. She knew that her father had already sold the land in question in favour of petitioner No. 1 on 5.7.2006. 9. Smt. Parmod Kumari is inimical towards petitioner No.2, she could not digest the transaction of sale of the property in Ambala City in favour of Smt. Anita wife of petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, with a view to take revenge Smt. Parmod Kumari has concocted a false story in FIR No. 18 of 2011. The registered document is a notice to public at large. The report for making entry in the revenue record regarding acquiring any interest in the immoveable property has to be lodged with 4 Halqua Patwari within a period of three months. It has been stated that there is no merit and truth in FIR No. 18 of 2011. 10. Smt. Parmod Kumari is exerting political pressure on the police, the petitioners are being harassed by implicating them in uncalled for litigation. The petitioners are being called to the Police Station, Kumarsain. The petitioners were put under fear of arrest, they were granted bail by the Court. 11. It has been stated that no criminal case is made out against the petitioners. On the basis of the allegations made in the FIR no cognizable offence is made out. The complainant manipulated registration of a criminal case against the petitioners by virtue of her political influence. Petitioner No.1 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. He has paid the entire sale consideration. The sale deed has already been registered. The validity of the sale deed dated 5.7.2006 has not been challenged, no criminal case is made out against petitioner No. 1 in presence of sale deed. The petitioner No. 2 has also not committed any offence. He executed sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 1 on the basis of agreement to sell and General Power of Attorney. The dispute, if any, is of civil nature. The prayer has been made for quashing the FIR. 12. The respondent No.1 has filed reply in which preliminary objection of maintainability has been taken. It has been stated that FIR No. 18 of 2011 discloses commission of cognizable offence and investigation revealed that prima facie petitioners have committed cognizable offences. It has been stated that petitioners are not co- operating in the investigation. The petition is pre-mature. 5 13. On merits, it has been stated that no documents have been given during investigation by the petitioners. The sale deed dated 5.7.2006 has been executed on the basis of General Power of Attorney of Jai Chand by petitioner No. 2 in favour of petitioner No. 1. But these facts are yet to be ascertained and investigation is in progress. The petitioners are not joining the investigation of the case. 14. It has been denied that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The validity of General Power of Attorney is still to be investigated. The petitioners are in possession of General Power of Attorney which they are not producing despite repeated demands made by the Investigating Officer. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners in which they have reiterated their stand and denied the case put forward by the respondent No.1. 15. I have heard Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Ruma Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 and Mr. Satpal Jain, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for complainant Smt. Parmod Kumari. Annexure P-1 is the copy of plaint in Civil Suit titled Parmod Kumari vs. State Bank of India pending in Ambala Court. Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-9 are the copies of written statement of defendants No. 2 and 3 in Civil Suit Parmod Kumari vs. State Bank of India, Annexure P-3 is the copy of agreement dated 26.6.2006 between Jai Chand and petitioner No.1. Annexure P-4 is the copy of General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2006 of Jai Chand in favour of petitioner No. 2, Annexure P-5 is the copy of sale deed dated 5.6.2007, Annexure P-6 is the public 6 notice published in Dainik Tribune dated 6.7.2006, Annexure P-7 is the copy of FIR No. 18 dated 22.3.2011 registered at Police Station, Kumarsain and Annexure P-8 is the copy of order dated 3.6.2011 in Cr.MP(M) No. 412 of 2011. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the civil suit filed in Ambala Court, Smt. Parmod Kumari has not raised any grievance with respect to sale deed dated 5.6.2007. The petitioner No.2 and his wife Anita are contesting the civil suit filed by Smt. Parmod Kumari at Ambala and in their written statement, it has been pleaded that Jai Chand had executed Will dated 11.7.2006 in favour of petitioner No.2. It has been submitted that petitioner No. 2 is the nephew of Jai Chand and there is nothing wrong when Jai Chand executed General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2006 in favour of petitioner No.2. Jai Chand had executed agreement dated 26.6.2006 in favour of petitioner No.1 for sale of his share in Kotgarh property. In agreement dated 26.6.2006 reference of General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2006 has been made. On the basis of agreement to sell dated 26.6.2006 and General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2006 petitioner No.2 has executed the sale deed of Kotgarh property of Jai Chand on 5.6.2007 in favour of petitioner No.1. It has been contended that as per the agreement, Jai Chand had already received ` 1,70,000/- at the time of the agreement and balance sale consideration was paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed to petitioner No.2. There is nothing wrong in the entire transaction. FIR No. 18 of 2011 has been got registered by Smt. Parmod Kumari only to harass the petitioners. The sale deed dated 5.7.2006 is registered and is a notice 7 to general public, the sale deed has not been questioned in civil court, FIR has been registered on 22.3.2011. There is no explanation for delay. The dispute, if any, is of civil nature. It has been submitted that no cognizable offence is made out from FIR No. 18 of 2011. 17. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation. They are not producing the requisite documents. On the basis of FIR No. 18 of 2011 cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The case filed is pre-mature as the investigation is still in progress. 18. Mr. Satpal Jain, Senior Advocate has submitted that petitioners have not impleaded the complainant as party in the petition, who will be directly affected in case the petition is allowed. The complainant somehow came to know the filing of the petition and, therefore, she has put in appearance in the court through her counsel for opposing the petition. It has been submitted that the petitioners have forged the documents and got the share of Jai Chand transferred in Kotgarh property illegally in favour of petitioner No.1 on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 5.6.2007. He has submitted that Jai Chand has not executed any agreement with petitioner No.1 of Kotgarh property nor he executed any power of attorney in favour of petitioner No.2 nor he received any sale consideration for selling his share in Kotgarh property in favour of petitioner No.1. The complainant came to know the transfer of share of Jai Chand when she went to Kotgarh for purposes of mutation of the estate of Jai Chand after death of Jai Chand and this fact has been stated in the FIR No. 18 of 2011 dated 22.3.2011. 8 19. In FIR No. 18 of 2011 dated 22.3.2011 there are allegations that sale deed and General Power of Attorney are forged. It has been alleged that father of the complainant had never given any General Power of Attorney. It has been stated that sale deed and General Power of Attorney have been prepared in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The investigation in the case has not been completed. The respondent No.1 has taken the stand that petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation. There is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that once sale deed registered and has not been assailed in the civil court the complainant has no locus standi to launch the criminal proceeding against the lawful owner. The complainant has taken the stand that sale deed dated 5.7.2006 as well as General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2006 are forged. According to complainant there is no delay in lodging FIR. As per complainant she lodged FIR when on her visit to Kotgarh in connection with the attestation of mutation regarding the property of Jai Chand, she came to know that share of Jai Chand has already been transferred on the basis of forged documents. 20. In Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751, the Supreme Court has held that criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. The allegations in the FIR are that the 9 General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2006 and sale deed dated 5.7.2006 are forged. The further allegations are these documents have been prepared by the petitioners in order to deprive the complainant the share of her father Jai Chand in land situate at Kotgarh to which she is entitled being daughter of deceased Jai Chand. Therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable criminal case against the petitioners is made out from the FIR and dispute is only of civil nature. 21. Mr. Jain, in order to buttress his submissions has submitted that the documents filed by the petitioners themselves support the case of the complainant. He has submitted that in the written statement Annexure P-2 filed by the petitioner No. 2 in Ambala Court, he has pleaded that Jai Chand had executed a Will dated 11.7.2006 in favour of petitioner No.2 herein. It has also been alleged that the Will was ‘signed’ by Jai Chand. In the General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2006 there is a note that Jai Chand earlier used to sign but due to paralysis he is not in a position to sign and, therefore, he has put his thumb mark on the document. In agreement Annexure P-3 dated 26.6.2006 there is no such note. 22. It has been submitted that when as per the stand of the petitioner No.2 Jai Chand was in a position to allegedly sign the Will on 11.7.2006 in his favour how it is possible that on 16.6.2006 in the General Power of Attorney it has been stated that Jai Chand has put his thumb mark instead of signature as he was stated to be suffering from paralysis. It has been submitted that prima-facie General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2006 and the sale deed dated 5.7.2006 are forged. There is close proximity in various important dates. The General Power 10 of Attorney is dated 16.6.2006, agreement is dated 26.6.2006, sale deed is dated 5.7.2006, disinheritance of Smt. Parmod Kumari public notice is dated 6.7.2006, alleged Will is dated 11.7.2006 in favour of petitioner No.2, Jai Chand died on 21.7.2006. All this requires investigation. The complainant’s case cannot be thrown out on the ground that case is of civil nature or there is delay in lodging FIR. 23. In D.Venkatasubramaniam and others vs. M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari and another (2009) 10 SCC 488, it has been held that the inherent power of the High Court is saved to interfere with the proceedings pending before a criminal court if such interference is required to secure the ends of justice or where the continuance of the proceedings before a court amounts to abuse of the process of court. Such a power under Section 482 of the Code is always available to the High Court in relation to a matter pending before a criminal court. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others vs. Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129 it has been observed as follows:- ”From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision, it would be evident that the inherent power of the High Court is saved only in a case where an order has been passed by the criminal court which is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice or where the proceeding pending before a court amounts to abuse of the process of Court. It is, therefore, evident that power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court in relation to a matter pending before a court; which in the context of the Code of Criminal Procedure would mean “a criminal court” or whence a power is exercised by the court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once it is held that the criminal court had no power to deal with the property seized under the Act, the question of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not arise.” 11 The investigation in the present case is still in progress. No matter is pending in the court, therefore, in view of D.Venkatasubramaniam (supra) and State of West Bengal (supra) no interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage can be made in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 24. In Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 686, it has been held that time and again the Supreme Court has been pointing out that quashing of FIR or a complaint in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions. The Supreme Court has noticed State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259. 25. In the present case, the petitioners have miserably failed to point out that no cognizable offence is made out from FIR No.18 dated 22.3.2011. There is no reason to disbelieve the stand of respondent No.1 that petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation. The Investigation in the case is still in progress. There is no merit in the petition. 26. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. December 5, 2011 . ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.