Criminal Misc. No. M- 47243 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 47243 of 2007 Date of decision:- 06.4.2011 Hazara Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 30 dated 18.7.2006 under Sections 420,467,468 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Ropar. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner aged about 80 years and Karam Singh respondent No.2 are real brothers. Litigation between the parties started as far back as in 1994 when Karam Singh filed a suit in the civil court of Additional Civil Judge, Anandpur Sahib for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the respondent No.2 from the land. This suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.8.1998. The appeal filed before the learned District Judge, Ropar was also dismissed on 26.4.2002. A complaint was filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 Karam Singh under Section 420 IPC read Criminal Misc. No. M- 47243 of 2007 -2- with Section 120-B IPC on 10.2.2003. IN that case the respondent is facing trial. An FIR No.24 dated 16.12.1996 was lodged by the son of the complainant under Sections 326 and 324 IPC against the petitioner and his sons at Police Station Nurpur Bedi. The petitioner was acquitted of the offence vide judgment dated 15.6.2005. Another suit No.173 of 2001 dated 24.7.2001 was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. A compromise was effected between the parties and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.6.2005. In this compromise, it is agreed that respondent No.2 would pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner for dragging him into unnecessary litigation. It was agreed that respondent No.2 will give Rs.5,00,000/- to Sukhdev Singh, a common man for being given to the petitioner after withdrawal of the cases but Rs.5,00,000/- were not paid to the petitioner after the cases were withdrawn. However, on 30.3.2006 respondent No.2 called the petitioner to tehsil complex for getting payment of Rs.5,00,000/- in terms of the compromise. By playing fraud upon the petitioner, he got his thumb impressions on a number of papers. Son of Hazara Singh reached the tehsil complex and read the documents and saw that thumb impressions of Hazara Singh were got on a sale deed alleged to be executed by him in favour of Karam Singh of the land and house for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. It was also mentioned in the sale deed that Hazara Singh had already received Rs.2,50,000/-. On detecting the fraud, the petitioner left with his son and moved an application to the Sub Registrar on 30.3.2006 with a copy to SHO Police Station Nurpur Bedi regarding the fraud played upon the petitioner by Karam Singh-respondent No.2. No action was taken by the police on this application. Respondent No.2 in order to harass the petitioner get the present FIR registered on 18.7.2006 to the effect that Hazara Singh had agreed to execute a sale deed on 30.3.2006 in favour of Karam Singh with respect to 11 Criminal Misc. No. M- 47243 of 2007 -3- marlas of land, where house of Hazara Singh is constructed, for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given to him but Hazara Singh did not appear before the Sub Registrar for getting the sale deed registered. On these allegations, police registered the FIR under Sections 420,467,468 and 120-B IPC in Police Station Nurpur Bedi. This FIR has been registered on 18.7.2006 after a gap of four months of the date of alleged incident i.e. 30.3.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC is made out on the allegations in the FIR. It is purely a dispute of civil nature and ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out. On the same set of allegations a civil suit of possession of land measuring 11 marlas of land has been filed by respondent No.2. He relies on Thelapalli Raghavaiah versus Station House Officer and others 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 374; Arun Kumar and another versus State of Punjab and another 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 793: and Manisha Goyal versus State of Punjab 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 162. On the other hand counsel for the respondent Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate argued that an inquiry has been conducted and it has been concluded that Rs.2,00,000/- have been received by the petitioner. This inquiry was conducted on the application made by Karam Singh on 05.5.2006 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar and thereafter the FIR was registered. After this inquiry, the challan was presented against the accused in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib on 24.7.2007. The case is pending in the trial Court and FIR could not be quashed at this stage. He relies on Smt. Rumi Dhar versus State of West Bengal and another 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 704 to contend that criminal and civil proceedings can proceed Criminal Misc. No. M- 47243 of 2007 -4- simultaneously even if there is compromise in civil proceedings, criminal offence does not amount to come to an end. After going through the entire record of the case, the FIR is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was a simple case of breach of trust. The Supreme Court in Thelapalli Raghavaiah versus Station House Officer and others (supra) had an occasion to examine a case where a civil contract has been given to a private limited company Raghava Infrastructure Private Limited by the complainant. The complainant was appointed a sub-contractor by Soma Enterprise Limited, who got a contract for executing the work on the Nellore Bypass road on National Highway-5, for excavation and transportation of gravel for the formation of embankment of Nellore Bypass Road on National Highway-5 from Km 172.840 to 178.200 from 1st June, 2002 onwards. The agreed rate of remuneration was Rs.27/- per cubic meter for the first kilometer and Rs.4/- per cubic meter for each kilometer thereafter. From the month of August, 2002 to December, 2002 Soma Enterprise Limited started mixing fly ash with the gravel purportedly in keeping with instructions received. On account of such mixing of fly ash with the gravel, Soma Enterprise Ltd. began deducting various amounts from the complainant's bills. The complainant raised repeated protests. He was assured by the contractors of Soma Enterprises that the correct amount would be disbursed by volumetric bifurcation of gravel and fly ash. For example, a sum of Rs.5.72 lakhs had been deducted from the bill for the month of February, 2003. The complainant got mixed tested at the Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT, Madras and was informed that there would be no increase in the volume of gravel soil. The complaint was initiated in the above background and the police authorities done the investigation into the facts for having hatched a criminal conspiracy and cheating. This complaint was registered on 21.6.2005 under Sections 196,199,120-B,403,406 and 418 IPC. After registration of FIR, a criminal miscellaneous was filed for quashing the FIR, got registered by the Criminal Misc. No. M- 47243 of 2007 -5- complainant. The FIR was quashed by the High Court that the complaint did not disclose any offence except civil dispute. The complainant went in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by placing reliance on the judgment of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. Versus Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., 1988(1) RCR (Criminal) 565, following their law laid down came to the conclusion that no criminal offence was made out after going through the contents of the complaint, which was prominently civil wrong which related to measurement. Nature of the work was the excavation and transportation of gravel from the respondent's land. There was no entrustment involved. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint made out were purely of civil dispute relating to the measurement of gravel delivered to the work site. The allegations in the present FIR is that by playing fraud upon the petitioner, his thumb impressions were got on a number of papers. The petitioner is 80 years old and the dispute is within the real brothers, is going on as far back in 1984. After getting his thumb impressions on a number of papers, the petitioner made an application to the Sub Registrar regarding the fraud played upon him by Karam Singh-respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has got the FIR under Sections 420,467,468 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner by alleging that he has received Rs.2,50,000/- for execution of sale deed on 30.3.2006 with respect to 11 Marlas of land (where the house of Hazara Singh is constructed). On the same set of allegations, a civil suit for possession of 11 Marlas of land has been filed by respondent No.2. Bare reading of the above facts reveals that it is a case of civil nature. Civil Court seized of the matter and the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out. The ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Thelapalli Raghavaiah versus Station House Officer and others's case (supra) has followed in respect to the present facts. On the other hand, the judgment of Supreme Court in Smt. Rumi Dhar versus State of West Bengal and another 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 704 Criminal Misc. No. M- 47243 of 2007 -6- , relied by Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the respondent No.2-complainant, is not applicable to the present facts. In this case, the petitioner was a bank employee and he was prosecuted for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 467,426 and 471 IPC. The officers of the bank had also been prosecuted under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 1988. The charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. In the civil proceedings, the accused paid Rs.22.51 lakhs to the bank and as per the compromise, civil litigation came to an end. The accused sought discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial pending pursuant to the registration of FIR under Sections 120-B/420/467/468 and 471 IPC. The accused had filed an application for discharge after framing of charge. His application was rejected by the Special Judge vide order dated 16.12.2006 and the High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has declined to interfere and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by observing that a direction to quash the case involving crime against society particularly when both, the learned Special Judge as well as High Court have found that prima facie case found out against the appellant for framing of charge. The facts, in the above-mentioned case are that an employee of bank had misappropriated the amount of Rs.22.50 lakhs. He was entrusted the duty relating to maintenance of cash of the bank. Therefore, case under Section 420 IPC was made out. Even though he had returned the amount, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in view of the facts of the case. In the present case there is a dispute relating to agreement to sell between the families of two brothers and it is alleged that Hazara Singh had executed a sale deed on 30.3.2006 after accepting Rs.2,50,000/- and later on he did not appear before the Sub Registrar for getting the sale deed registered. It is not disputed that 11 Marlas of land is where the house of Hazara Singh is Criminal Misc. No. M- 47243 of 2007 -7- constructed. In the civil suit for possession of land is being contested by Hazara Singh and his family. This dispute being civil in nature does not attract any criminal intention. The FIR in question has been registered on 18.7.2006 after a gap of four months i.e. 30.3.2006. Being a dispute of purely civil in nature, FIR No. 30 dated 18.7.2006 under Sections 420,467,468 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Ropar is quashed alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. 06.4.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE