Bhagwant Singh vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.

Bhagwant Singh son of Phuman Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report No. 126 dated 31.8.1993 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana (Annexure P7), the challan dated 4.3.1994 (Annexure P14) and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, the same being an abuse of the process of the court and in order to secure the ends of justice.

It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner had good relations with S. Jagtar Singh Sekhon who is residing in California (U.S.A.). Jagtar Singh has been the owner of certain properties at Ludhiana . He disclosed to the petitioner that he wanted to transfer 510 square yards of his land situated in Ghumar Mandi Ludhiana which was being used by Inderjit Singh Gill for running a small dhaba known as Gill Dhaba in his favour. Shri Inderjit Singh Gill is the sister''s son of Jagtar Singh. Accordingly, the petitioner is alleged to have received a power of attorney dated 16.4.1980 (Annexure P.2) duly attested and notarized in U.S.A. As per wishes of Shri Jagtar Singh, the petitioner transferred 318 square yards of land in favour of S. Inderjit Singh and 192 square yards in favour of Smt. Harminder Kaur, wife of Shri Inderjit Singh vide two separate sale deeds dated 16.7.1980. It has been explained that even Inderjit Singh had been given power of attorney dated 23.12.1975 (Annexure P.1) by said Shri Jagtar Singh.

It is alleged that when S. Jagtar Singh contracted fifth marriage with Smt. Paramjit Kaur, he was incited by his brotherinlaw Baldev Singh to get the transfers nullified as the price of the land has gone enormously high. As a consequence Jagtar Singh filed a complaint alleging therein that the power of attorney dated 16.4.1980 (Annexure P.2) purporting to have been executed by him was a forged and fabricated document. On an enquiry into the allegations in the complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana vide his letter dated 8.4.1992, informed Jagtar Singh that the matter was of a civil nature and he should pursue his case before the Civil Court. After a period of 11/2 years, F.I.R. No. 126 dated 31.8.1993 was lodged by Shri Baldev Singh, brotherinlaw of Shri Jagtar Singh, with Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana, for the offences under sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner Inderjit Singh Gill, Smt. Harminder Kaur and one Niranjan Singh (fatherinlaw of Inderjit Singh Gill). After investigation a chargesheet has been filed against all these four persons in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on 11.4.1994 and a charge has already been framed against the petitioner and his coaccused on 1.9.1994.

It is further alleged that two civil suits were filed by S. Inderjit Singh Gill and his wife Smt. Harminder Kaur seeking a declaration regarding their ownership and possession in respect of the aforesaid land with a prayer for injunction for restraining Baldev Singh and Jagtar Singh from interfering in any manner in their possession over the said land. On the other hand two civil suits had been filed by Jagtar Singh through his attorney Shri Baldev Singh for a decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed by the present petitioner in favour of Inderjit Singh Gill and Smt. Harminder Kaur are illegal and void because the power of attorney (Annexure P.2), on the basis of which these sales were effected, is a forged and fabricated document. Shri Inderjit Singh had transferred a portion of the land in favour of his fatherinlaw Shri Niranjan Singh which sale has also been challenged on the ground that power of attorney given to Inderjit Singh in the year 1975 has already been revoked and subsequent sale on the basis of the said power of attorney was illegal and void.

It is thus alleged that the entire dispute is of civil nature and the criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court and in order to secure the ends of justice, the First Information Report, the challan and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents in their separate reply each of the two respondents has stated that the power of attorney dated 16.4.1980 (Annexure P2) is a forged and fabricated document which is the result of a conspiracy amongst the petitioner and his three coaccused. It has been further stated that once the investigation is over, the challan has been filed in the court and a charge has been framed, the question of challenging the chargesheet and the subsequent proceeding does not arise. It is thus stated that the present petition itself is an abuse of the process of the court and the same is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

7A. Shri R.K. Battas Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the dispute is of civil nature and civil suits are pending between the parties, the registration and continuation of criminal proceeding is only with a oblique motive to harass the petitioner. It has been further contended that even earlier on a complaint made by Shri Jagtar Singh, the police had categorically intimated that the dispute was of a civil nature and Shri Jagtar Singh should approach the civil court. In the alternative, the learned counsel has argued that the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate are liable to be stayed to avoid embarrassment and harassment to the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon number of judgments reported as Sardool Singh and another v. Smt. Nasib Kaur, 1987 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 633, Mahla Ram v. Hawa Singh, 1991(3) RecentCR 101 , Nafe Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) RecentCR 619 , Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) RecentCR 727 and Kuldip Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) CLR 253.

On the other hand Shri S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate while appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has argued that where both the remedies i.e. civil as well as criminal are available in a given case, both the proceedings should continue. It has been further argued that the proceedings pending in the civil court would take a long time for disposal whereas the proceedings before the criminal court would be decided very soon and as such the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate should not be stayed. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the apex court reported as M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397 and two judgments of this court reported as Mohinder Kumar Sikri v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another, 1993(3) RecentCR 337 and Chanchal Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1993(3) RecentCR 579 . Shri I.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General Punjab has adopted the arguments advanced by Shri S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate.

I have carefully considered the respective arguments advanced at the Bar and have also perused the various judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions.

It is not disputed that Shri Jagtar Singh through his attorney Shri Baldev Singh (respondent No. 2) has filed two civil suits, seeking a declaration to the effect that the two saledeeds dated 16.7.1980 executed by Bhagwant Singh in favour of S. Inderjit Singh Gill and Smt. Harminder Kaur are null and void since Shri Bhagwant Singh had no right or authority to transfer the said land in favour of the said persons and that the power of attorney dated 16.4.1980 (Annexure P.2) is a forged and fabricated document, and is a result of a conspiracy among the petitioner''s S. Inderjit Singh Gill, Smt. Harminder Kaur and S. Niranjan Singh. He has also claimed possession of the said land. Both these suits are pending trial in the civil courts at Ludhiana. It is also not disputed that simultaneously Smt. Harminder Kaur and Shri Inderjit Singh Gill had also filed civil suits seeking a declaration that they are the owners and in possession of the aforesaid land and Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh be restrained from interfering in their possession. However, both these suits have been withdrawn on an undertaking given by the defendants that they would not forcibly dispossess Smt. Harminder Kaur and Inderjit Singh Gill from the pieces of land in their respective possession. It may also be mentioned that admittedly Shri Jagtar Singh had executed power of attorney dated 23.12.1975 (Annexure P.1) in favour of S. Inderjit Singh Gill, and on the basis of this power of attorney, Shri Inderjit Singh Gill is stated to have transferred some land belonging to Jagtar Singh in favour of Niranjan Singh (fatherinlaw of Shri Inderjit Singh) by sale deed dated 17.1.1992. This sale is also being challenged by Shri Jagtar Singh on the ground that the power of attorney dated 23.12.1975 had been revoked by a revocation deed dated 26.7.1991 and sale thereafter effected on the basis of the power of attorney dated 23.12.1975 is null and void.

From a perusal of the First Information Report (Annexure P.7), it is evident that it is being alleged by the prosecution that Bhagwant Singh in conspiracy with Inderjit Singh Gill, Harminder Kaur and Niranjan Singh forged and fabricated the power of attorney dated 16.4.1980 (Annexure P.2), and then Bhagwant Singh the present petitioner executed two saledeeds in favour of Inderjit Singh and Harminder Kaur in respect of 318 square yards and 192 square yards of land situated in Ghumar Mandi Ludhiana, belonging to Jagtar Singh. Thus they have committed the offences under sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report, the police carried out investigation and filed chargesheet against the petitioner and his coaccused in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. A charge has also been framed against the petitioner and his coaccused by the said learned Magistrate. In these circumstances, the question of quashing the First Information Report or the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom does not arise and this plea has not been rightly pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only question remains to be considered is as to whether the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ludhiana ought to be stayed till the decision of the disputes between the parties pending in the civil courts in the two suits filed by Jagtar Singh.

In M.S. Sheriff''s case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India made the following observations :

"As between the civil and the criminal proceedings the criminal matters should be given precedence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment. Another factor which weighs with the Court is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till every body concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial."

From a perusal of the above observation, it is evident that in such circumstances the only relevant consideration is likelihood of embarrassment.

In M/s Karam Chand Ganga Parshad and another v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 1244 the movements of maize had been controlled by the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Northern Interzonal Maize (Movement Control) JUDGMENT 1967. The restriction on export imposed by that order were removed by the State of Haryana in October, 1967. The Chief Minister, Haryana had made an announcement on 11.10.1967. Relying on these announcements, certain parties exported maize, in Haryana to West Bengal. The railway authorities refused to deliver the same to the consignees on the ground that export in question was illegal. The maize was forfeited and persons responsible for the export were prosecuted. Writ Petitions were filed at Delhi and the High Court held that in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings at West Bengal, it is not proper for the High Court to pronounce on the question arising for decision in the writ petitions. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that :

"It is a well established principle of law that the decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true."

In another decision rendered in Sardool Singh and another''s case (supra) their Lordships of the Apex Court were pleased to hold as under :

"A civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the respondent is that no Will was executed whereas the contention of the appellants is that a will was executed by the testator. The case for grant of probate is also pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Rampur. The Civil Court is, therefore, seized of the question as regards the validity of the Will. The matter is subjudice in the aforesaid two cases in Civil Courts. At this junction the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the Will is a forged one. That question Will have to be decided by the Civil Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the Will is being tested before a Civil Court."

What emerges from these three decisions rendered by the Apex Court is that when the genuineness of a document is the foundation of a civil suit as well as criminal prosecution, the continuation of the criminal prosecution would cause embarrassment and the same should not be allowed to continue since the question would be decided finally by the civil court which would also be binding on the criminal court.

In Nafe Singh''s case (supra) the First Information Report for the offences under sections 420/109 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the allegations of the informant that he was made to suffer an agreement to sell his land under the influence of liquor. He also filed a civil suit challenging the validity of the agreement. Under these circumstances a Single Bench of this court stayed the further proceedings in the criminal case till the decision of the civil suit. Similarly in Ajmer Singh''s case (supra) an F.I.R. under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against certain persons for fabricating and forging a power of attorney and on that basis suffering a decree with respect to land in favour of his relation. A civil suit involving the question as to whether the said power of attorney was forged or not, was also pending. The proceedings in the criminal case were stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. The facts of that case are identical to the facts of the case in hand. Similar views have been expressed by this court in Malha Ram''s case (supra) and Kuldip Kumar''s case (supra).

I have carefully perused the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. In both these cases, the prosecution was launched against the petitioners under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for the embezzlement of the official amount and civil suits were also filed against them for the recovery of the said amount. In these circumstances, this court had held that both the proceedings civil as well as criminal ought to continue. Thus the learned counsel for the respondents cannot derive any help from the ratio of these two decisions.

In view of the specific law laid down by the Apex Court and this court in the various judgments discussed above, it would cause embarrassment and harassment to the petitioner if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against him in the face of the pendency of the civil litigation between the parties on the same issue. It may be restated that ultimately it would be the decision of the Civil Court which would be final between the parties and would also be binding upon the criminal court also.

As a result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed to the extent the criminal proceedings in F.I.R. No. 126 date 31.8.1993 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Ludhiana pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana shall remain stayed till the decision of the civil suits. The respondents shall be at liberty to move the court of the Judicial Magistrate for revival of the criminal proceedings on the decision of the civil suits. In these terms the petition stands disposed of.