Criminal Misc. No. M-4639 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-4639 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:2.03.2009 Nirmal Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. R.D. Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Nirmal Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.41 dated 7.3.2001 registered under Sections 205, 208, 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Kharar, District Ropar. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the grand- father of the petitioner, namely, Uttam Singh had three sons- Sampuran Singh, Rattan Singh and Charan Singh. His property was inherited by his three sons in equal shares. Charan Singh, owner in possession of 12 kanals of land remained unmarried throughout his life. He transferred his said land by way of collusive decree dated 30.4.1990 in favour of Nirmal Singh petitioner. Subsequently, Jaswinder singh respondent influenced Charan Singh and also served him in his old age. As a result of which, Charan Criminal Misc. No. M-4639 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Singh filed a civil suit No.280 dated 11.3.1993 stating in the plaint that he never filed the power of attorney and written statement in the aforesaid suit, which culminated in the collusive decree and prayed for declaring the same as null and void. The aforesaid suit was decided in favour of Charan Singh on 1.2.2001 by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, Mr. Roshan Lal Chohan, Judicial Magistrate First Class directed the SHO of Police Station Kharar to lodge an FIR against Nirmal Singh. On the basis of the same, afore- referred, FIR No.41 ibid Annexure P.1 was registered. Against the said order, Nirmal Singh filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ropar on 26.3.2001 Annexure P.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner entered into an agreement with Charan Singh and Jaswinder Singh, wherein Nirmal Singh admitted the sale deed dated 18.1.2001 as correct vide which 6 kanals land was transferred in the name of Jaswinder Singh - respondent. Further in the said agreement, Charan Singh had admitted Nirmal Singh to be the owner of the remaining 6 kanals of land as per collusive decree. During the appeal proceedings, Nirmal Singh and Charan Singh entered into another compromise Annexure P.4 dated 8.6.2001 vide which it was agreed between the parties that it was a family dispute and the same has been settled and the case may be decided on the basis of said compromise and suit filed by Charan Singh may be dismissed. On the basis of this compromise, Charan Singh and Nirmal Singh appeared before the learned Additional District Judge and recorded their statements, wherein Charan Singh admitted the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 as legal and withdrew the suit. Nirmal Singh also recorded his statement admitting therein, the compromise arrived at between the parties. On the basis of their statements Annexure P.5, the learned Additional District Judge passed an Criminal Misc. No. M-4639 of 2008 (O&M) -3- order dated 11.6.2001 Annexure P.6, thereby dismissing the suit filed by Charan Singh and appeal filed by Nirmal Singh as withdrawn. Even thereafter, the criminal proceedings in FIR No.41 ibid remained continued. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail. On 13.7.2005, the petitioner submitted an application Annexure P.7 before the learned trial Court for dismissing the complaint. The same was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2007 Annexure P.8 without taking law and facts of the case into consideration. In these circumstances, this petition may be accepted and FIR No.41 ibid may be quashed. In reply filed by way of affidavit of Raj Balwinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, it has been averred that the case against the petitioner was registered as per orders of Mr. Roshan Lal Chohan PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Kharar, because the petitioner had committed the fraud in the learned Court and got the land of Charan Singh transferred in his name by obtaining collusive decree from the learned Court by impersonating Charan Singh. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. R.D. Sehgal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has reiterated the averments as enshrined in this petition, whereas on the other hand, Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the State has submitted that in view of the facts embodied in the reply, the F.I.R is not liable to be quashed. I have well considered the rival contentions. As a matter of fact, in terms of Kulwinder Singh and others v. Criminal Misc. No. M-4639 of 2008 (O&M) -4- State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 1052, the quashing on the basis of compromise Annexure P.4 has been sought. A glance through Annexure P.4 would reveal that Charan Singh has nowhere admitted that in fact, it was he who had suffered statement before the Court and on the basis of the same, the collusive decree was passed and no body had been put in his place as an impostor. Nay this, the FIR No.41 has been registered at the instance of Mr. Roshan Lal Chohan, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar. Even on this score, the stated compromise in no matter dilute the allegations in this FIR. As recited in the FIR, “in case titled Charan Singh v. Nirmal Singh, Civil Suit No.RT-280 of 11.3.1993/ 2.3.2000, the plaintiff has sought declaration to the effect that judgment and decree in civil suit No.63 of 30.1.1990 passed on 30.4.1990 by Shri A.S. Ghuman, PCS, Sub-Judge First Class, Kharar is null and void. In this suit, the plaintiff Charan Singh has alleged that he never appeared in the Court to suffer the decree and that somebody else had falsely presented Charan Singh to secure a decree qua his land. In this case, it has been held in the judgment dated 1.2.2001 that Charan Singh- plaintiff never appeared in the Court, but somebody else falsely impersonated Charan Singh and presented power of attorney and written statement in the case titled as Nirmal Singh v. Charan Singh - Civil Suit No.63 of 20.1.1990 and subsequently, somebody else appeared in the Court to get his statement recorded on 25.4.1990 and that person also falsely impersonated Charan Singh. It has been held in the judgment dated 1.2.2001, in case titled as Charan Singh v. Nirmal Singh, Civil Suit No. RT 280 of 11.3.1993/ 2.3.2000 that a fraud has been played by defendant No.1 – Nirmal by producing two different persons on two Criminal Misc. No. M-4639 of 2008 (O&M) -5- different dates to impersonate Charan Singh and that Nirmal Singh has obtained a collusive decree in the said case and on the basis of that decree, he has become owner of the suit property, which he has subsequently sold to somebody else.” The Apex Court in re: Sanapareddy Maheedhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 101, has held as under:- “That 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-4639 of 2008 (O&M) -6- It is apt to be borne in mind that as a matter of fact, the fraud has been played with the Court by producing some person other than Charan Singh. It is because of this reason that the Presiding Officer of the Court became the lodger of the FIR. Palpably, the petitioner has made an attempt in vain to get this FIR quashed under the garb of alleged compromise. The said compromise is between the parties and not with the author of the FIR, nor it could be. To crown it all, it has been manifested in plain words in re: Sanapareddy Maheedhar (supra), that the FIR is to be quashed only in those cases where it does not disclose commission of any offence or the allegations contained therein do not constitute any cognizable offence or 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. Herein, the allegations embraced in the FIR prima-facie exhibit the perpetration of offence by the petitioner. Thus, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR. As a sequel of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed. March 02, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes