Hardev Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

Through this Criminal Misc. Petition No. 443M of 1996, Hardev Singh has prayed to this Court for quashment of FIR No. 127 dated 15.11.1995, (Annexure P6) registered at P.S. Bhikhiwind under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code against him and others at the instance of Gurvinder Singh S/o Ajit Singh.

Gurvinder Singh and Hardev Singh are the sons of Ajit Singh born to different mothers. Gurvinder Singh is the son of Smt. Guro while Hardev Singh is the son of Smt. Gurmej Kaur. Hardev Singh has two sisters namely Biro W/o Major Singh and Ninder Kaur who is married at Tata Nagar. There was land measuring 7 Kanals 9 marlas owned by Ajit Singh situated at village Sugga. Half of this land had already been willed away to Hardev Singh through will by Ajit Singh. With regard to the remaining half, will was executed by Ajit Singh in favour of Smt. Guro i.e. Hardev Singh''s mother. Ajit Singh was killed by extremists some time after 7.1.1990. Smt. Guro wanted that will to be given effect to and half of the land mutated in her name. On the basis of that will, she took proceedings in the Court of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patti (Mutation Officer). After the death of Ajit Singh, Government was to disburse the exgratia grant. Hardev Singh connived with the Reader to SDM, Patti, Sh. Mehta, Hardev Singh came to Gurvinder Singh and his mother Smt. Guro and told them that the Reader to the SDM had come to village Sugga that day for recording the statements for disbursement of exgratia grant in equal shares. Reader was residing in the house of Hardev Singh. Hardev Singh called Gurvinder Singh and his mother Guro. Gurvinder Singh and Smt. Guro took one Ajmer Singh of village Sugga with them thinking that he was an intelligent man. In the house of Hardev Singh, Sh. Mehta was already present. He told them that he had been entrusted with the duty of recording their statements for disbursement of ex gratia grant to them. He took their thumb impressions on blank papers. Ajmer Singh signed as witness. Later on, they went to the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti for enquiring about the mutation proceedings pending there. They learnt that Hardev Singh had got sanctioned the mutation in his favour by joining hands with the Reader to the SDM on the basis of the thumb impressions which had been procured on blank papers by him (Reader to the SDM). On the basis of this statement of Gurvinder Singh, case FIR No. 127 dated 15.11.1995 was registered at P.S. Bhikhiwind under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC.

Hardev Singh has desired the quashment of this first information report on the ground that the statements were recorded in the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)/Assistant Collector First Grade, Patti. It was a contested mutation contested by Gurvinder Singh and Smt. Guro. During mutation proceedings, Smt. Guro and Gurvinder Singh made statements consenting to the inheritance of Ajit Singh being mutated in favour of Hardev Singh Gurvinder Singh and Guro. Their statements were attested by Lambardar Joginder Singh in the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)/(Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patti). On the basis of statements (Annexures P1 and P2) mutation was sanctioned.

Smt. Guro and Gurvinder Singh did not go in appeal impugning that mutation. Gurvinder Singh and his mother are anxious to take possession. In their anxiety to take possession, Gurvinder Singh tried to dispossess him (Hardev Singh) in the beginning of 1995 with the help of one Mohinder Singh and the Police. He (Hardev Singh) filed suit for injunction to thwart their design to dispossess him forcibly. That suit was decred for permanent injunction. On 18.10.1995 Gurvinder Singh got Hardev Singh picked up by the police in an attempt to wrest possession.

When the efforts of the Gurvinder Singh and his mother to wrest possession from him did not bear any fruit, they resorted to the strategy of getting this case registered so that they delivered them possession. For challenging that mutation, Gurvinder Singh has filed suit for declaration. No court can take cognizance of this case at the instance of a private party when the forgery had allegedly taken place in court. If forgery takes place in court, then that court alone or the Court to which that court is administratively subordinate can launch criminal proceedings in view of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the statement made by Gurvinder Singh and his mother in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patti. Those statements were attested by Joginder Singh, Lambardar. If any forgery took place that took place in the Court of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patti and, therefore, cognizance could be taken of this forgery by the court only if complaint to this effect had been filed by that Court in which the forgery took place. Court cannot take cognizance of the alleged offence of forgery at the instance of Gurvinder Singh. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Section. 195 Cr.P.C. reads as follows :

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence :

(1) No court shall take cognizance

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in subclause (i) or sub clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of subsection (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint ;

Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

(3) In clause (b) of subsection (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a court for the purposes of this section.

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of subsection (1), a court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such civil court is situate;

Provided that

(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the appellate court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the court to which such court shall be deemed to be subordinate;

(b) Where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed."

If forgery is committed in a court in relation to any proceeding before it, only that Court or Court to which that Court is subordinate can institute complaint. In clause (b) of subsection (1), the term "Court"means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

Assistant Collector Ist Grade is neither a civil nor a revenue nor a criminal Court. Assistant Collector Ist Grade is only "Revenue Officer" when he is dealing with mutation matters. Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code is, thus, not attracted so far as this case is concerned.

It has been next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Gurvinder Singh has filed suit for declaration against Hardev Singh, Gurmej Kaur and others to the effect that he is owner (cosharer) in possession of 101 kanals 8 marlas of land i.e. half of 202 kanals 16 marlas and that defendants Hardev Singh etc. have no right or interest so far as this land is concerned with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining Hardev Singh from alienating that land to any one; in the alternative for joint possession. Gurvinder Singh could pursue either Civil remedy or criminal remedy. He could not pursue both.

Suffice it to say that through the civil suit which Gurvinder Singh had withdrawn on 26.4.1996, he had sought declaration that he is owner/cosharer in possession of 101 kanals 8 marlas of land. Through that suit, he wanted to set at naught the effect of that mutation. Through the civil court, he had desired a finding so far as ownership of the land is concerned.

Through this first information report, he has desired to seek punishment to Hardev Singh etc. Criminal Court can punish criminally. It cannot declare ownership. Both these remedies are thus, separate and independent of each other.

Case has been registered against Hardev Singh and others and is being investigated. In the exercise of inherent powers vesting in it under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, this Court will quash prosecution in the rarest of rare cases.

In Gopalakrishna Menon and another v. D. Raja Reddy and another, 1983(2) RCR 354 , the Court where the forgery had been allegedly committed was the civil court and, therefore, Hon''ble the Supreme Court held that the court could take cognizance of forgery only on the complaint by the court in which the forgery had been committed.

In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 1146 it was held that where at the date of quashment of the proceedings, no chargesheet or a complaint had been laid in the Court and the matter was only at the stage of the investigation by the Police, court cannot in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction interfere with the statutory powers of the police to investigate into the alleged offence and quash the proceedings. It was also held that the Court cannot at that stage appraise the evidence collected by the Police during their investigation.

The Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 as to these cases where criminal prosecution can be quashed in the exercise of powers vesting in this court under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code which are as under :

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are then at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

It is true that these are mere guidelines. These are mere illustrative and not exhaustive. There may be many more situations where this Court might feel inclined to quash criminal prosecution in the interest of justice. In the instant case, however, there is no reason to quash this prosecution at the initial stage.

Supreme Court has thus laid down only guidelines in State of Haryana another v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (ibid), as to the cases where criminal prosecution can be quashed in the exercise of powers vesting in this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

For the reasons given above this criminal miscellaneous petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order dated 9.4.1996 staying investigation shall stand vacated.