Crl.Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 12, 2010 Crl. Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 Karamjit Singh @ Karma and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Crl. Misc. No. M-44810 of 2007 Bharpoor Singh @ Bhura and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Kewal Singh,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mrs. G.K.Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Crl.Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 2 Sabina, J. Vide this order, the above-mentioned Criminal Misc. Petitions are being disposed of by a common order as these have arisen out of the same summoning order dated 24.7.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of complaint dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P1) as well as summoning order dated 24.7.2007 (Annexure P2) vide which the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 420/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') before the trial Court, JMIC, Ludhiana. The contents of the complaint (Annexure P1) read as under:- “1. That the complainant Avtar Singh is the son of Surjit Singh resident of above mentioned address. Father of the complainant Surjit Singh is the real brother of Mohinder Singh. There was an oral and family settlement of the joint family property which was reduced into writing vide agreement dated 1.7.2004 between the father of the complainant and his brother Mohinder Singh. A attested copy of the agreement is attached. 2. That according to the above said agreement, the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 5518-5517, 5520 measuring 3B-16B- 2B situated in village DOLON KALAN and 31K-3-1/3M out of Khasra Nos. 5//14/1, 159, 6//8, 9, 10,11, 5//6, 11, 5//15, 16/1, 6//12, 19, 20, 21/1,5//6, 7/1, situated in village SHEHJADI TEHSIL AND DISTT. LUDHIANA had fallen to the share of the father of the complainant who was already in actual physical Crl.Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 3 possession of this land and cultivating the same. 3. That the accused Bharpoor Singh had evil eye on the property of the father of the complainant and he wanted to grab the property of the father of the complainant. 4. That Mohinder Singh brother of the father of the complainant due to ill-health admitted in Hospital. All the accused persons inconnivance with each other hatched a conspiracy to grab the property of the father of the complainant, they went to the hospital where Mohinder Singh was admitted. The accused persons forcibly taken Mohinder Singh with them and asked him to execute the sale deed of the share of the property of the father of the complainant in favour of accused Bharpoor Singh when Mohinder Singh told them that partition has already been effected and now he has no right to sell the property of Surjit Singh and he also requested them that he is ready to sale his own property but the accused No.1 did not agree and told him that he only wants to get the property of Surjit Singh as the same has more value. When Mohinder Singh refused to do so all the accused persons started beating him and kidnapped him with an intention to kill and they kept Mohinder Singh in their illegal custody for many days and on 5.10.2005 the accused persons threatened Mohinder Singh that if he will not sale the property of Surjit Singh then he would be done to death. On 5.10.2005 under the threat of life the accused persons forcibly taken Mohinder Sigh to the office of Sub Registrar Ludhiana and forcibly get executed the sale deed of the share of Surjit Singh from the Mohinder Singh. The accused Crl.Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 4 persons also forcibly obtained the thumb impression of Mohinder Singh on various papers. The accused persons had not paid any sale consideration to the Mohinder Singh and thereafter they detained Mohinder Singh in their illegal custody. 5. That thereafter when Mohinder Singh escaped from the illegal custody of accused persons he narrated all the story to the complainant and his father Surjit Singh. 6. That the abovesaid sale deed which was forcibly got executed by the accused Bharpoor Singh is totally null and void as after the family partition of the land Mohinder Singh had no right to sell the land belonging to the father of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that infact Mohinder Singh is the resident of village Dollon but in the alleged sale deed he has shown as resident of village Shehjadan and the accused No.2 and 4 had also attested him as resident of village Shehjadan as such they have also liable themselves to be prosecuted. 7. That the accused persons have committed a fraud with the father of the complainant as they were fully aware this fact that the said land is belonging to the father of the complainant and they forcibly get sale deed from Mohinder Singh, thus, the sale deed dated 5.10.2005 has no legal value in the eyes of law. The accused No. 2 and 4 i.e. Randhir Singh and Lambardar Sarvor Singh respectively were also aware with the same fact that Mohinder Singh has no right to execute the sale deed but they have attested the above said sale deed in order to cause wrongful loss to the father of the complainant and in order to gain wrongly Crl.Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 5 to themselves. 8. That now the above said accused persons are threatening the complainant and his family members that they will forcibly taken possession of the above said land. 9. That thereafter the complainant approached the police and moved an application before SP-City-II and on the application of the complainant SP-City-II directed the concerned police to register case against the accused persons as per law but the accused persons have great influence over the local police, thus no case has been registered till today. Hence this complaint.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be allowed. It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482,Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any Crl.Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 6 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR 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 proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. Crl.Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 7 (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In the present case, the allegation levelled by the complainant is that Mohinder Singh had been forced to execute the sale deed dated 5.10.2005. The sale deed was, admittedly, executed in the presence of the Registrar. In these circumstances, it cannot be prima-facie accepted that Mohinder Singh had been forced to execute the sale deed. The sale deed in question is dated 5.10.2005,whereas, the complaint in question was filed in November, 2006. In case, Mohinder Singh had been forced to execute the sale deed, he was expected to raise a protest in the presence of the Registrar. However, the complainant has waited for more than a year before filing of the complaint. In these circumstances, prima facie, no offence is made out which required the criminal machinery to be Crl.Misc. No. M-44316 of 2007 8 set in motion. The learned trial Court erred in passing the summoning order against the petitioners. I am of the considered view that the proceedings in question are nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The complaint dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P1) as well as all the subsequent proceedings pending thereto including the summoning order dated 24.7.2010 (Annexure P2) are quashed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 12 , 2010 arya