Dhan Raj vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') for quashing First Information Report No. 118 dated 18.3.1994, registered at Police Station Jhunir, for the offences under Sections 406/420, Indian Penal Code, and for quashing all the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof.

The facts, which can be gathered from the allegations contained in the impugned first information report, are that Mohinder Kaur and her son Satinderjit Singh Sidhu, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, are owners in possession of 235 Kanals 2 Marlas agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Makhewala. The petitioner is carrying on his business of commission agency at Mansa. The said respondents used to sell their agricultural produce through the commission agency of the petitioner. On 28.2.1986, these respondents appointed the petitioner as their general attorney, inter alia authorising him even to sell their land but only after consulting them. Soon after, the respondents realised that the petitioner was playing fraud with them and wanted to dispose of their property without their consultation and to cheat them. Sensing this, the respondents cancelled the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner before the Panchayat and asked him not to act as their attorney in future. These respondents appointed one Shri Sita Ram, a covillager as their general attorney vide registered power of attorney executed on 4.1.1990. However, the petitioner, in pursuance of the general power of attorney (Annexure P.2) executed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur in his favour sold 74 Kanals 3 Marlas of agricultural land on 15.7.1992 for a consideration of Rs. 3,76,000/ to one Pritpal Singh son of Sadhu Singh of village Makhewal. He also executed another sale deed in respect of 79 Kanals 18 Marlas, in pursuance of the power of attorney (Annexure P.3) executed by Satinderjit Singh Sidhu respondent on the same day for consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/ in favour of Sh. Ranjit Singh son of Jaswant Singh of the same village. Both these sale deeds were got registered at Delhi.

According to the allegations of the respondents, the petitioner executed these two sale deeds without their knowledge and without consulting them by way of sham transaction to play fraud upon them and thereby deprived them of their valuable property. It has been alleged that the petitioner along with other persons in connivance and collusion with each other, cheated these respondents by executing said sale deeds without any consideration. It has been further alleged that the consideration for the alleged sale deeds has been shown to be quite meagre in view of the market value of the land at the time of the execution of the said sale deeds, that the sales were not intimated to the Patwari for effecting any mutation and that the possession of the land was also not taken by the socalled vendees in pursuance of these sale deeds, only with a view to keep these respondents ignorant about the same. It has also been alleged that the petitioner never paid any amount to these respondents which might have been received by the petitioner as the so called consideration for the said two transactions. On these facts, the impugned first information report was registered on 18.3.1994 at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa.

It is also desirable to mention that on 28.3.1994 these respondents had filed two suits challenging the legality and validity of the said two sale deeds on the basis of fraud alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner whereby causing huge loss to them, and also for a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the socalled vendees from taking possession in pursuance of the said two sale deeds and also from alienating the said land by way of mortgage, gift or otherwise. These suits are pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Mansa, issues were framed on 13.5.1995 and the same are fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein.

The petitioner has sought the quashing of the impugned first information report on the ground that in pursuance of an express power conferred upon him by the respondents, he executed two saledeeds in question for a consideration of Rs. 3,76,000/ and Rs. 4,00,000/, respectively, and handed over the said amounts to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 vide receipts Annexures P.4 and P.5. It has been further stated that his power was cancelled by the respondents by two separate registered notices dated 16.10.1993 i.e. much after the execution of the sale deeds in question. It has been stated that the respondents have filed civil suits on the same very allegations which are pending trial before the civil Judge, the judgment in which would be final and binding upon the parties. It has been stated that no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and the first information report (Annexure P.1) is liable to be quashed along with the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof.

Notice of motion was given to the respondents. In reply, it has been stated that the investigation was complete and the challan was filed in the Court on 28.10.1994. It has been further stated that a charge had been framed against the petitioner and others on 1.4.1995 and certain witnesses of the prosecution have also been examined. It is, thus, stated that the petitioner has concealed all these facts and has come to this Court under Section 482 of the Code after a period of two years, which facts are in themselves enough to reject the present petition. On merits, the allegations made in the first information report have been reiterated. It has been stated that the petitioner along with others entered into a criminal conspiracy and cheated the respondents. It has been further stated that even the socalled consideration alleged to have been received by him has not been paid to the respondents which constitutes an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. On behalf of the State, it has been stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case there exists no ground to quash the first information report.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Shri Ashok Singla, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that even if the first information report is not quashed for any reason, at least the proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate in pursuance of the impugned first information report are liable to be stayed till the decision of the civil suits. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the judgments of the civil Court in both the suits would conclude the controversy between the parties. In support of this plea the learned counsel has placed reliance upon certain judgments of this Court rendered in Ranjit Kumar Lohria v. Madan Lal, 1993(1) Recent C.R. 121 , Nafe Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) Recent C.R. 619 , Bhagwant Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1996(2) Recent C.R. 145 , and R.C. Goenka v. Som Nath Jain, 1996(2) Recent C.R. 205 .

On the other hand Shri Ramanjit Singh, learned Assistant A.G., Punjab, has argued that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and is thus not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. It has been argued by the learned A.A.G. that the investigation in the case was complete and chargesheet was filed in the Court on 28.10.1994, charge was framed on 1.4.1995 and certain witnesses of the prosecution have also been examined. It has been pointed out by the learned A.A.G., that the present petition has been filed in November 1995. It is thus argued that at this stage the Court will not invoke its inherent powers to quash the first information report or the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. The learned A.A.G. has placed reliance upon three judgments of the Apex Court rendered in State of Bihar and another etc. etc. v. Shri P.P. Sharma and another, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1260, State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 604 : 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 383 and The Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court 892.

Shri C.M. Munjal, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3, has argued that the respondents have been defrauded, cheated and deprived of their valuable property by dishonest acts of omission and commission by the petitioner in conspiracy with others, for which the respondents have got their remedies in civil as well as criminal law. It has been further argued that the object and purpose of the civil and criminal proceedings are quite distinct and unless there are some special reasons, the criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed or stayed. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner along with others by entering into a criminal conspiracy committed an offence of cheating thereby depriving the respondents of their property, and further committed an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, by not paying the socalled sale consideration to them.

I have carefully considered the respective arguments advanced at the Bar.

It is not disputed at the Bar that the investigation in the impugned first information report was concluded and a chargesheet was field in the Court on 28.10.1994 against the petitioner and others. It is not disputed that a charge was framed against the petitioners and others on 1.4.1995 and certain witnesses of the prosecution have already been examined during the trial. These facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner in the present petition. Concealment of these material facts from the Court in itself is enough to dismiss the present petition.

Further, the inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. This Court would refrain from giving a premature decision on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties before it where the case involves complicated questions of law and facts. In the case of P.P. Sharma (supra), the Apex Court sounded a note of caution that grossest error of law would be committed by the High Court in making a pretrial of a criminal case in exercising its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction. Similar views have been expressed in Ch. Bhajan Lal''s case (supra) and the Janata Dal''s case (supra). Still further, charge has already been framed and certain prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Therefore, the question of quashing the first information report in question does not arise.

Coming to the alternative contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to make a reference to the following observations made by the Apex Court in M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 397 :

"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 everybody 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."

This view has been reiterated by their Lordships in a recent decision rendered in V.M. Shah v. The State of Maharashtra and another, JT 1995(6) S.C. 433. In State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Kalyan Sundram Cement Industries Ltd. and others, 1996(2) R.C.C. 501, the Apex Court categorically observed that the Courts rarely stay the criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require the exercise of power.

It may be stated that there can be no rigid or straitjacket formula fixing the standard for staying the proceedings in the criminal case while civil proceedings are pending between the parties. The real consideration would, thus, be likelihood of embarrassment to a party. I have considered the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner but the same have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, when the prosecution case has proceeded upto a considerable stage, there would be no justification to stay the further proceedings therein, since it is not known as to by what time the civil suits would be decided finally between the parties.

As a result of the above discussion, I do not find any jurisdiction either to quash the first information report or even to stay the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof and pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.