Criminal Misc. No.30117-M of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.30117-M of 2009 Date of decision : 06.04.2010 Surinder Kumar & Others ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab & others ..... Respondents Present: Mr. Naiya Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents-State. ****** S.S.Saron, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” - for short) has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR No.213 dated 28.07.2007 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station City Kapurthala for the offences under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The quashing of the FIR (Annexure P-1) has been sought on the basis of affidavit dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure P-11) of respondent No.4 Roop Ram whereby it is stated that a compromise has been effected between the petitioners and the alleged complainant. The FIR (Annexure P-1) in the case has been registered on the basis of an enquiry, conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala. The allegations in the FIR are that Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) son of late Piara Lal was employed as a Patwari in 1999. He got Amit Khanchi 2013.09.12 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.30117-M of 2009 -2- appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of his father Piara Lal on 20.7.1994. The Enquiry Officer found that Piara Lal, father of petitioner No.1, had joined as a Peon in the office of Tehsildar, Kapurthala on 01.03.1951. Thereafter, he left the job on 21.02.1972 regarding which, he did not inform the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. Thereafter, Piara Lal got a license for running commission agency from the Licensing Authority, Kapurthala and he had opened a commission agency shop in Bholath Mandi, Kapurthala. The partners in the shop, were Piara Lal, his son Dalip Chand and Manjit Kaur wife of Gurbakhash Singh. Till the year 1983 Piara Lal had worked as a commission agent and he died in the year 1984. At that time, Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) was about 25 years of age. Piara Lal had four sons and three daughters and none of them informed the Deputy Commissioner's Office or the Tehsildar's Office, Kapurthala regarding the death of Piara Lal in the year 1984. When Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) was 38 years old, he applied for getting a job on compassionate grounds basis and after 13 years of the death of his father, he informed the office of the Tehsildar, Kapurthala regarding the death of Piara Lal. He also got moved an application from his mother (respondent No.4) in the year 1997 for getting family pension. Before submitting the death certificate in the office of Tehsildar, Kapurthala, he got the original service record of his father misplaced and prepared a duplicate service record for consideration of the case for family pension. The case for grant of family pension was sent to the Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh who sought information from the Tehsildar, Kapurthala regarding the period of duty of Piara Lal from 1972 to 1984. On this, the Tehsildar, Kapurthala replied to the Accountant General, Punjab that Piara Lal had not been on duty for 12 years between 1972 to Amit Khanchi 2013.09.12 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.30117-M of 2009 -3- 1984 because of his illness. As per the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, false information was sent to the Accountant General, Punjab. On the basis of false information, pension was granted to Roop Rani (respondent No.4). After issuance of orders for grant of pension, Surinder Kumar got a false affidavit from his brothers Dalip Chand, Kewal Krishan and Lalit Kumar; sisters Surjit Kumari, Sudesh Kumari and Kamlesh Kumari as also his mother Roop Rani that Piara Lal had died during the service. On the basis of said false affidavit, the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala appointed Surinder Kumar on the post of Patwari on compassionate grounds on 11.03.1999. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that respondent No.4 Roop Rani with whom the compromise is stated to have been entered into is in fact an accused in the case and has been put at serial No.5 of the challan, that has been filed. In the circumstances, the affidavit dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure P-11) on the basis of which, quashing of the FIR has been sought is absolutely without merit. In the affidavit (Annexure P-11) it has been alleged that Surinder Kumar had got the job of Patwari after the death of his father and all the rights of pension were granted to the deponent (Roop Rani). There was a dispute in the family regarding property and some persons who were inimical to the family took her thumb impressions on some blank papers on the pretext of getting her dispute settled and instead used the said papers for implicating her son Surinder Kumar against whom she did not make any complaint. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Roop Rani (respondent No.4), the mother of petitioner No.1 was the complainant. However, the position is that Roop Rani (respondent No.4) in fact is one of the accused and the prosecution Amit Khanchi 2013.09.12 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.30117-M of 2009 -4- has been launched on the basis of report of the DSP. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of affidavit dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure P-11), the FIR is liable to be quashed. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to embark upon an inquiry and to ascertain whether the offences as alleged in the FIR are made out or not. This is the domain of the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the matter has been compromised by the complainant. In fact, respondent No.4 is one of the accused. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S.SARON) JUDGE April 6,2010 Gagan/amit Amit Khanchi 2013.09.12 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh