Haqiqat Singh vs Amritpal Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

By virtue of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioners Haqiqat Singh and Kuldip Kaur seek quashing of the complaint and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar.

The relevant facts are that Amrit Pal Singh filed a criminal complaint alleging that he is the owner and in joint possession upto the extent of 1/3rd share in the pucca shops and the land in question. The petitioners are also owners in possession of the remaining 2/3rd share in the said property. The title has been so recognized vide the judgment and the decree of the civil court (Sub Judge IInd Class) dated 17.2.1979. Haqiqat Singh is the brother of private respondent Amrit Pal Singh while Kuldip Kaur is his wife. Amrit Pal Singh and Kuldip Kaur had executed a general power of attorney in favour of Haqiqat Singh on 7.2.1983. The private respondent had revoked the said general power of attorney on 10.5.1985 by a registered deed. A legal notice alongwith revocation deed was sent by the private respondent. Haqiqat Singh received the said revocation deed. Despite that acting on the earlier general power of attorney, a forged sale deed was executed in order to cause wrongful loss to the private respondent. Private respondent filed three suits for the recovery and further alleging that offences punishable under Sections 463/464/465/467/468/470/471/474/120B IPC have been committed, the complaint as such was filed.

The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The private respondent Amrit Pal Singh filed a revision petition in the court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on 16.8.1989 set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It was held :

"After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It can be presumed that the persons other than Hakikat Singh were not in the knowledge of revocation deed or notice of revocation, but Kuldip Kaur is none else than the wife of Hakikat Singh and Sant Singh is the brother of Kuldip Kaur. In these circumstances, it can be presumed on the other hand that they had the notice of the revocation. As regards the other witnesses, they do not belong to the village of the parties and they were purposely joined by the respondents in order to have the sale deed executed. It is yet to be proved whether they had any notice or not. But at this stage, it cannot be said that they had no notice of it. As far as the production of original sale deed is concerned, that admittedly is in possession of Kuldip Kaur and as regards its copy, it need not be produced at the stage of the preliminary evidence. Certified copy of the sale deed has already been placed on record and it was presumed that the sale deed came into being in the manner given in the certified copy. For the purpose of finding a prima facie case for summoning the respondents, certified copy of the sale deed was enough to presume that Hakikat Singh had, in fact, executed the sale deed on 6.3.1985 after revocation of general power of attorney in his favour. The petitioner has produced a photostat copy of the acknowledgement due vide which notice of revocation was serviced upon Hakikat Singh."

With these findings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remitted the case to the trial magistrate with a direction to summon the accused and proceed in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that on basis of the allegations made, no case punishable under Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code is made out. According to him the document was executed on basis of the power of attorney and there is no question of there being any false document having been prepared. In this regard reference may be made to what is meant by forgery as explained under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code and making of a false document which has been detailed in Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. The same read :

"463. Forgery. Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

...

Making a false document. A person is said to make a false document

First. Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or

Secondly. Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or

Thirdly. Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration."

The above expressions clearly show that it is making of a false document when a person dishonestly or fraudulently signs a document by authority of a person which he knows that it was not made, it would be a false document. As at present prima facie it has been found for purposes of summoning the petitioner that the persons executing had no authority to execute the sale deed. At this initial stage when only the court is required to see if there are sufficient grounds to proceed or prima facie case is made, there is no scope for interference with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Reliance on behalf of the petitioners was being placed on the decision in the case of Radheshyam Dubey v. Chandra Bali Singh and others, 1983 Allahabad Law Journal 793. In the cited case the allegations of the complaint were that accused persons had entered into a conspiracy and one of the accused sold certain property to other accused under a fictitious sale deed. It belonged to the applicant. It was held that it would not be forgery contemplated under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. The ratio of the decision is that if a person who is a genuine person executes or signs the papers in own name, then he does not commit any forgery. Similar view prevailed with this Court in the case of B.R. Gupta v. Kaushal Kumar, 1995(3) RCR 621. There the petitioner had let the property describing himself as full owner of the property. In fact he owned 3/4th share in the property. It was held that offence of forgery is not made out. Both these decisions on facts are distinguishable. There is no false assertion as in the above said decisions. In the present case, it is alleged that person knew that it is being executed without the authority of the private respondents. The nature of events and the facts stated, therefore, make the facts of the present case distinguishable. There is no ground to exercise the inherent powers and interfere in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Consequently, the petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.