Kamal Parkash vs Bhajan Lal

Surinder Gupta, J.—In this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''Cr.P.C.''), the petitioners seek quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) "Bhajan Lal Vs. Kamal Parkash and others" and summoning order dated 25.08.2008 (Annexure P-4).

In the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent, following allegations have been levelled against the petitioners:-

(i) The sister of petitioner No. 1 was married in the neighbourhood of complainant, as such, he used to visit his village and developed friendship.

(ii) In the year 1999, petitioner No. 1 represented the complainant that in order to save himself from the Income Tax Department, he had to show some agricultural income. The complainant, who was under the influence of petitioner No. 1, was allured to execute sale deed regarding his land in favour of petitioner No. 1 which he executed vide vasika No. 1612 dated 17.03.1999 and also leased land measuring 44 kanals in favour of petitioner No. 2 Rajesh Kumar, who is son of petitioner No. 1. The signatures of respondent were obtained on 2/3 papers.

(iii) About two years before filing of complaint, the respondent asked petitioner No. 1 to get the sale deed and lease deed cancelled at which he assured to take up the matter with Tehsildar. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 took him to Tehsildar and got his signatures and thumb impressions on the papers already prepared there, on the pretext that the sale deed and lease deed were being got cancelled.

(iv) On 19.06.2003, petitioner No. 1 came to the village and told the people of the village about sale of the land of respondent and thereafter the respondent came to know that in order to usurp his land, petitioner No. 1 had got forged agreement to sell dated 01.03.1999 and sale deeds dated 01.03.1999 and 15.06.2001. No payment was ever made to the respondent, as such, the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'').

On presentation of complaint, the trial Court passed the order

(Annexure P-4) summoning all the petitioners. The operative part of trial Court order is reproduced as follows:-

In order to prove the allegations, the complainant has appeared as PW2 and has reiterated the allegations made against the accused, and the matter was sent to the SHO, Police Station Punhana for enquiry. After the receipt of the report of the SHO to the effect that the complainant did not want to pursue the complaint, the complainant stated that he was not satisfied with the report of the police and want to lead evidence and therefore, examined Ved Ram as PW1. The complainant himself appeared as PW2 and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. PW3-Ata Mohd. also stated that the accused has obtained the sale deeds after obtaining thumb impressions and signatures of the complainant on blank papers. PW4-Har Chand also supported the allegations of the complainant stating that the accused had obtained the sale deeds and when they were called in the Panchayat to return the land of the complainant, they refused to do so.

I have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on file.

In view of the fact that even in the written statement filed in the Civil Suit Bhajan Lal has claimed that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and also in view of the preliminary evidence supporting the allegations made by the complainant, all the accused are ordered to be summoned to face trial for the commission of offence punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC. Let the accused be summoned for 17.11.2008 on filing of PF, copy etc.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their assistance.

The sale deeds which the respondent is challenging are dated 1.3.1999 (Annexure P-5), dated 26.4.1999 (Annexure P-7) and 25.06.2001 (Annexure P-8). It is clear that all the sale deeds were not executed on one day and there is gap of more than two years in executing all the sale deeds.

The sons of respondent filed civil suits bearing No. 230, 236 and 229 dated 16.07.2003 challenging sale deeds dated 25.06.2001, 1.3.1999 and 26.4.1999 respectively against respondent and vendees of the sale deeds. These civil suits were dismissed vide judgments dated 18.12.2009 Annexures P-14 to P-16 and the finding was returned that the sale deeds in question are legal and binding and not liable to be set aside.

The appeals against the judgments of civil Court were dismissed on 22.12.2010 vide judgments Annexures P-17 to P19.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that these judgments have become final as no regular second appeals against these judgments have been filed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to refute the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners so far as the judgments of the civil Court declaring the sale deeds executed in favour of petitioners No. 3, 4 and 7 as legal and valid. He has simply argued that judgments of civil Court are not binding on the criminal Court and the petitioners with the help of document expert can prove that the sale deeds executed in favour of petitioners were forged and fabricated.

It is nowhere the case of the respondent in the complaint that the sale deed dated 17.03.1999 Annexure P-6, which is the subject matter of the complaint, was a forged and fabricated document. He has argued that this sale deed was executed by him on the asking of petitioner No. 1 without receiving any sale consideration. The civil litigation regarding these sale deed continued from 16.07.2003 till the civil suits were decided on 18.12.2009 and civil Court has ultimately reached the conclusion that the sale deed in question and the other sale deeds executed by respondent were legal and valid documents. Admittedly, the judgments passed by the civil Court have attained finality.

The scope of powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been discussed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, and it was observed as follows:-

8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

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

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) 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;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code;

(e) 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;

(f) 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;

(g) 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.

The allegations levelled in the complaint filed by respondent make out no case against the petitioners for their trial by the criminal Court. Respondent has not levelled any allegations against petitioners No. 2, 5 and 6. Petitioner No. 8 was the witness of the sale deed executed by respondent. The respondent has not raised any objection against the sale deeds executed by him in the year 1999 and 2001 till he filed the complaint (Annexure P-1) on 12.07.2003. Simultaneously, civil suits were got filed from the sons of respondent claiming the property sold as joint Hindu family coparcenary property but the same proved to be counter productive and the sale deeds were held as legal and valid documents.

This Court is not required to examine the allegations contained in the complaint or the evidence produced by the respondent on merits but the fact remains that there was a gap of more than two years in execution of the sale deeds and in the complaint, the respondent has not stated anything that the influence of petitioner No. 1 continued on him for such a long time. It is a clear case of misuse of process of Court by the respondent.

The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the findings of the civil Court are not binding in the criminal matters, even if accepted, makes out no case in favour of respondent on perusal of the complaint or the order of the trial Court Annexure P-4. The respondent himself executed sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 1. In case, he had to challenge the transaction, it was a case of civil dispute, which he never raised, but in the civil suits filed by his sons, the sale deeds were held to be legal and valid.

As a sequel of my discussion as above, this petition has merits and is accepted. The complaint Annexure P-1 and summoning order Annexure P-4 along with all consequential proceedings in the complaint are, hereby, quashed. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.