Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The petitionerGurdeep Singh son of late Satnam Singh has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 namely the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and the Station House Officer, Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana respectively to register the case against respondents 4 to 13 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 120B, 149 and 34 IPC.

The case of the petitioner is that the Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana issued an allotment letter regarding certain item of property in favour of the petitioner''s fatherSatnam Singh, Kulwant Singh (4th respondent herein) and Labh Singh (6th respondent herein) and that the 4th respondent Kulwant Singh by falsely fabricating the records in the office of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana as owner of the property, has disposed of the property through a forged and fictitious sale deed in favour of respondents 9 to 13. The petitioner claims that he had sent a representation dated 18.3.1996 to the Government and a registered letter dated 15.11.1996 to the police, but the police have not registered the case against the respondents 4 to 13 and, therefore, has filed this petition. This Court, while ordering notice, ordered that notice may be issued to the Advocate General, Punjab and to the respondents 2 and 3 only.

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a reply through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana stating that though the record of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is stated to have been forged, there is no mention as to what is the overt act of the respondents in this regard. The respondents have also stated that a civil proceeding is pending between the petitioner and the respondents before the Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana filed by the petitioner against the respondents for restraining them from encroaching upon, or changing position of the plot or putting up any construction in the disputed plot. According to the respondents, since a civil suit is pending, it is not appropriate for the police to come to its own conclusion regarding a matter pending in the Civil Court. These respondents claim that respondents 5 to 13 have been unnecessarily involved and there is nothing to show that these respondents were aware or had previous knowledge about any forgery of memorandum of partition deed dated 6.7.1990. These respondents urge that the matter was got enquired by the local police, and it was found to be a matter under the gaze of the Civil Court. According to these respondents 1 to 3, the complaint filed by the petitioner involves complicated question of law and fact and as such the adjudication by the Civil Court is essential. According to these respondents, no criminal liability is made out against the respondents 5 to 13 from a perusal of the complaint.

I have heard counsel for both the sides.

Copy of the representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police has been produced as annexure P1. The relevant allegations in the complaint are as follows :

An allotment letter was issued by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust regarding a certain item of property in favour of Satnam Singh (petitioner''s father), Kulwant Singh (4th respondent) and Labh Singh (6th respondent). The fourthrespondent had falsely fabricated records in the office of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana as owner of the property, and has disposed of the property through a forged and fictitious sale deed in favour of respondents 9 to 13 in order to grab the property and to extinguish the allotment right of the applicant in the said property, and this has been done by all the accused with the common intention and as a result of the criminal conspiracy of each of them. The accused are raising illegal constructions on the property. Besides this, the fourth respondent with the active connivance of the respondents 5 to 8, has forged a memorandum of partition deed dated 6.7.1990 by forging the signatures of Satnam Singh and Labh Singh.

A perusal of the complaint reveals that the fourthrespondent in order to grab the property in dispute, has fabricated records of the office of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and has disposed of the property in favour of respondents 9 to 13. The complaint specifically mentions that this has been done by him in connivance with and as a result of the criminal conspiracy of all the other private respondents. It has also been mentioned that the fourth respondent in connivance with the respondents 5 to 8, has forged memorandum of partition dated 6.7.1990 forging the signatures of Satnam Singh, father of the petitioner and also forging the signatures of Labh Singh, the 6th respondent. Of course, it is stated by the petitioner that even the signature of 6th respondent has been forged in this partition deed. But it has also been alleged that all the private respondents have connived and conspired together and disposed of the property. The contention of the respondents 1 to 3 that there is a civil suit pending with regard to the same property and therefore, it is not appropriate for the police to come to any conclusion, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR 628, wherein it has been held that the mere pendency of a civil suit is no ground for not registering a case with reference to a cognizable offence. In view of this decision, this contention put forth by the respondents 1 to 3 cannot be accepted. The respondents 1 to 3 cannot also say that they have enquired into the matter and the complicity of the accused is not made out. The duty of the official respondents is to register the case and then act in accordance with law. A reading of the representation annexure P1 reveals the commission of certain cognizable offences. Therefore, the FIR has to be registered. At this stage this Court need not critically analyse whether what the petitioner states is true or not.

Hence this petition is allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to register the FIR against respondents 4 to 13 and then proceed further in accordance with law.