Jaswinder Pal Singh alias Bittu vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

Petitioners seek the quashing of the First Information Report registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506 IPC and the subsequent proceedings resulting from that First Information Report. That complaint was by one Sharanjit Kaur through her general power of attorney Harbhajan Singh. Complaint, Annexure P.1, indicates that it was initially filed with the District Superintendent of Police on 25.9.2.1992, and it was forwarded to the concerned police station on 9.3.1992 for investigation. As per that complaint, one Ranbir Singh put up one woman to impersonate the complainant Sharanjit Kaur before Sub Registrar and fabricated the execution of power of attorney dated 9.10.1987 in favour of one Amar Kaur. On the basis of such forged power of attorney, the said Amar Kaur later on executed a registered sale deed dated 15.9.1989 and sold certain property to her husband Banta Singh. It is alleged that at the time of forging the power of attorney, other two accused namely Mukhtiar Singh and Ranjit Singh identified the impersonated person as Sharanjit Kaur. It was claimed in the complaint that as such Sharanjit Kaur, the original owner of the property resides in England and had never come to India during the period when this document referred above had been executed. On the basis of these allegations, it is claimed that all these accused have committed the offences as mentioned above.

It may further be mentioned that as per Annexure P.5 the said Sharanjit Kaur has filed civil suit against Ranbir Singh, Amar Kaur and Banta Singh (who are among the accused mentioned above) and sought declaration that she is owner in possession of the property which purports to have been sold as per the document mentioned above. In the suit also she has alleged that the power of attorney which is said to have been executed by her in favour of Amar Kaur on 9.10.1987 was a forged document by impersonation in her place, and that the said Amar Kaur had no right to sell the property as a power of attorney holder of Sharanjit Kaur. It is further contended that sale deed executed by said Amar Kaur as the power of attorney holder on the basis of document mentioned above, was also illegal and not binding on plaintiff Sharanjit Kaur.

It may further be mentioned that in that suit, defendant No. 1 Ranbir Singh (one of the accused in the complaint mentioned above) has also filed the written statement and has claimed that plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the property in question. He claims to have purchased those properties by sale deeds dated 23.7.1975 and 10.8.1975. He further claimed that in the certain set of circumstances, the plaintiff and her brother Harbhajan Singh executed the power of attorney in favour of defendant 2 Amar Kaur, and thereby authorized her to sell the property in question. Briefly stated, therefore, the defendant has already taken the stand in respect of the allegations covered by the complainant.

In reply to the present petition, the affidavitcumreply by Mr. Rajinder Kaur Sharma DSP Jalandhar was filed. Briefly stated, he states that the signature on the power of attorney have been got compared with the admitted signature of the complainant Sharanjit Kaur, and report of the hand writing expert indicates that the signature on the power of attorney did not tally with the genuine signature of Sharanjit Kaur.

Respondent 2 Sharanjit Kaur has also filed reply to the petition and has reiterated the averments made by her in the complaint and in the suit.

Now by this petition the quashing of the said First Information Report is sought. One of the grounds raised pertains to the ground that no cognizable offence is spelt out. The ground 2(a) in the petition in that respect is very clumsily drafted. However, even the plain reading of the complaint coupled with the reply filed by the State which is referred above, it is clear that the power of attorney in question had not been executed by Sharanjit Kaur, and someone had personated. The other ground is that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report. That question of delay is to be sorted by the Court later on. Investigation of the case of forgery cannot be stalled simply because there was some delay in reporting the matter to the police.

The counsel further submits that since the civil suit as well as the criminal case covers the same subject matter in respect of the genuineness or otherwise of the power of attorney which is said to have been executed by Sharanjit Kaur in favour of Amar Kaur, the proceedings of the criminal Court should be stayed, till the decision of the civil suit. In support of that, the counsel for the petitioner cited rulings. The case of Nir Singh v. Puran Singh, 1988 CCC 533 is the decision by the Single Bench relying on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras and others, AIR 1954 SC 397. The observation in that case indicates that there is not straitjacket formula that a criminal case is to be stayed when the same subject matter is covered by the civil case also. It is observed therein that each case is to be considered on the facts. The guiding principle is that the resultant consequence should not be an embarrassment to the accused in the criminal case. In another case Kuldip Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) CLR 253, the Single Bench of this Court was of the view that the decision in the criminal case would depend on what the civil Court holds in respect of the disputed documents. In that case, the decision of the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Sheriff''s case (supra) has not been brought to the notice. However, in the subsequent case of Smt. Murti v. Hukam Chand, 1995(1) CLR 531, the Single Bench of this Court quoted the observations in the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) RCR (Crl.) 539 : 1985(1) CLR 666, and concluded that the ratio of the decision was to see that the parties to the litigation are not put to embarrassment in their defence while contesting civil as well as criminal cases. In the context of these rulings, it would be worthwhile to refer the observation of the Supreme Court in case of M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras and other, AIR 1954 SC 397. These are as follows :

"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."

In view of these various rulings, it is now obvious that the only question before me it whether there is likelihood of some embarrassment to the parties to the litigation if civil and criminal proceedings go side by side. In the context of that, it may be noted that in the criminal cases, besides the defendant in the civil suit, other persons are also shown as accused on the allegations that they gave a false identification to a person who personated Smt. Sharanjit Kaur as executant of the forged power of attorney. In so far as these persons were not parties to the civil suit, there is no question of parallel ligation against them in civil as well as in criminal Courts. In so far as it pertains to defendant No. 12 in the civil suit, he has already taken the stand in the civil suit by filing the written statement. The other two defendants 2 and 3 are the persons who are parties to the sale deed executed on the basis of power of attorney which is said to be forged one. In the context of these aspects, it may be noted that in the course of investigation, the disputed signatures have been already subjected to the examination by handwriting expert who opined that the signatures were not by Smt. Sharanjit Kaur. In civil as well as in criminal proceedings, the evidence will have to be led to establish the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed power of attorney. Therefore, there does not seem to be any escape from repetition of some part of the evidence in both these matters. It is obvious that the evidence led in one matter cannot be read and considered in another matter, except to the extent of confrontation of statements in the other proceedings, if these amount to contradictions etc. Therefore, in my opinion, and in keeping with the observation given in the case of M.S. Sheriff''s (supra) both these proceedings may proceed. Therefore, there does not seem to be any reason for stalling the progress of the criminal case until the decision in the civil Court. It may be well visualised that civil cases in the Courts take considerable time and are dragged upon to the highest Courts. Further, as observed by the Supreme Court in case of M.S. Sheriff''s (supra), the possibility of conflicting decision in the civil and criminal Courts is not the relevant consideration because the law envisages such eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other or even relevant except for certain limited purposes. In the context of this observation, one may well take into consideration the provisions of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act which makes provisions regarding the relevancy of the judgments of the Courts of justice. Briefly stated, the previous judgments of the Court are found to be relevant fact to the limited extent to establish issue regarding the res judicata (Section 40), in case of legal character entitling certain persons to a specific right or aspect (Section 41) matter of public nature relevant to the enquiry (Section 42). Section 43 of the Evidence Act further clarifies that the extent to which previous judgments would be relevant unless the existence of such judgment, order or, decree is a fact issue, or is relevant under some other provision of Evidence Act.

In this case, the matter is at the stage of investigation. The progress of investigation cannot be stalled simply because civil suit in respect of the same disputed document was filed.

On taking into consideration these various aspects, I find that there is no substance in this petition. It is dismissed.