Hazura Singh vs Nirmal Singh and anr.

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'') for quashing complaint dated 1061988 and the First Information Report entered on the basis thereof. The factual background is that one Ujagar Singh was owner of 121/2, acres of land in Bir Babran, District Hisar, which was allotted to him by the State Government on account of his being a political sufferer. Nirmal Singh is his nephew. Ujagar Singh was not able to manage the said land and it was, therefore, being looked after by his nephew Nirmal Singh. Ujagar Singh executed a registered power of attorney in favour of his said nephew on 1371986. Nirmal Singh was cultivating the land on behalf of his uncle and was residing therein. With the intention of grabbing that land, Charan Singh is alleged to have forged a power of attorney of Ujagar Singh, in his own favour in connivance with Hazura Singh and two witnesses. He got the same registered from the SubRegistrar, Amritsar. It is alleged that someone impersonated for Ujagar Singh and the power of attorney in favour of Charan Singh was bogus, fictitious and a forged document inter alia, the said power of attorney authorised Charan Singh to sell or transfer the land of Ujagar Singh. Charan Singh suffered a decree with regard to title of the land in favour of Hazura Singh on 1431987 in Civil Suit No 276C of 1987. Ujagar Singh instituted a suit challenging the said decree on 2451988 against Hazura Singh, Charan Singh and others. Another suit was filed by Hazura Singh on 2651988 with regard. to the said land. Nirmal Singh, nephew of Ujagar Singh, filed a complaint dated 1061988 alleging offences under sections 420, 463, 464, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was sent for investigation to the police under section 156(3) of the Code. The present FIR was registered by the police on the basis thereof. Petitioner Hazura Singh seeks quashing of the FIR.

Even though the petition was moved for quashing the FIR, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the time of hearing that the petitioner would be satisfied if instead of quashing the FIR proceedings in the criminal case were stayed till decision of the question by the civil Court.

There is no dispute that the primary question for decision both in the civil suit on the one hand and the criminal case on the other hand is whether the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by Ujagar Singh in favour of Charan Singh is forged. On decisions of the said question turns the decision in the civil suit as also the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rajendra Kumar Ruia v. State of West Bengal, 1969 Crl. L.J. 243, Phaggu Ram and others v. The State of Punjab, 1975 PLR 57 and Shiv Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) R.C.R. 593). The learned counsel also pointed out that all material evidence is likely to be committed to record in the civil proceedings and in the nature of things the evidence was documentary in nature and thus there was no risk of the same being destroyed by lapse of time.

The contention of learned counsel for the private respondent is that once the case was registered, it was the prerogative of the police to investigate the same according to law and the Court should not interfere in the course of investigation by staying the proceedings. He pointed out that investigation was primarily concerned with collecting evidence and if this duty was not performed it this stage, the evidence may be irretrievably lost with the passage of time. Learned counsel also contended that as between civil and criminal cases priority ought to be given to criminal cases as civil cases continued to drag on for several years.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it appears to be just and fair that while the police may complete the investigation in the case, the trial of the petitioner as also others who may be ultimately challaned may not be held till decision of the question of the genuineness of the power of attorney in dispute is decided by the civil Court. If there is any undue delay in the disposal of the civil suit for any unforeseen reason, it will be open to the private respondent as also the State to move for revival of the proceedings in the criminal case. The petition is disposed of in these terms.