Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 24 dated 20.02.2007 registered under Sections 419/420 IPC at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur and subsequent proceedings arising there from.

The FIR, in question, was registered at the behest of Satvir Singh, Sarpanch, wherein, it is submitted that a resolution was passed by Panchayat of Village Kalewal Fattu that the signatures of Kulwant Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh, Member Panchayat are forged in an application moved by the present Petitioner-Kulwinder Singh son of Mohan Singh against Satvir Singh, Sarpanch. Kulwant Kaur, Member Panchayat has also given an affidavit that she had not signed the said application. After obtaining opinion from the District Attorney, the FIR was registered. The matter was investigated into. Now the challan has also been filed in the present case.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while praying for quashing of the FIR, raised following arguments:

(a) Paramjit Singh husband of Kulwant Kaur had taken the signatures of Kulwant Kaur. Paramjit Singh has refused to give his signatures. As such, it is evident that it is Paramjit Singh, who has either procured her signatures or signed on her behalf.

(b) The Petitioner had also obtained the opinion of the Forensic Expert, namely, Kranti K. Sharma, Chandigarh, whose report is dated 02.03.2007 as Annexure P-7. In this report, the Forensic and Handwriting Expert has clearly come to the conclusion that the disputed/questioned signature has not been written by the Petitioner . The prosecution also got compared the hand writing of the Petitioner with the disputed signature of Kulwant Kaur by way of a reference moved by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, whose report is dated 25.06.2007, which shows that the Petitioner has not put the signatures of Kulwant Kaur on complaint dated 15.06.2006 which was signed by about sixty villagers.

(c) Further, the allegations leveled in the application given by the Petitioner against Satvir Singh were found to be false and proceedings u/s 182 Cr.P.C were proceeded against him. The police had also filed Calendar u/s 182 Cr.P.C against the Petitioner but the same was quashed by the High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 7693-M of 2007 vide order dated 31.03.2008. It is further stated that there is no iota of evidence to connect the Petitioner with the allegation as neither anybody had seen the Petitioner signing nor is there any other evidence connecting the present Petitioner.

(d) The allegations in the FIR, coupled with the fact that there is no evidence, will result in acquittal of the Petitioner and continuation of the proceedings will only amount to waste of time. Moreover, the allegations are mala fide and complaint is filed on account of political reasons as the complaint is a Sarpanch and the present Petitioner had moved an application against him.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted that the report of the handwriting expert, in no way absolves the Petitioner as the said report rather shows that the said signatures do not belong to Kulwant Kaur. The matter was investigated and the challan has already been filed against the Petitioner. Further, the application dated 15.06.2006 on which the forged signatures were obtained was moved at the behest of the Petitioner. As such, he is liable for the forged signatures of Kulwant Kaur.

Heard.

The first argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Paramjit Singh has refused to give his signatures and hence, it is he, who has either obtained the signatures of Kulwant Kaur or signed the same, cannot be made a ground to quash the FIR at this stage. The said argument is the defence of the Petitioner for allowing the presumption in his favour but cannot be made a ground for quashing of the FIR. The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In the facts of present case, a pre-mature assessment cannot be made as the prosecution will have to be given an opportunity to lead their evidence to ascertain the truth of the allegation.

The second argument that the Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, vide which, the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that the said signatures of Kulwant Kaur are not in his handwriting, is incorrect to that extent as A-1, A-2, S1 to S8 are the signatures of Kulwant Kaur which have been compared with Q1 on the complaint dated 15.06.2006. The result of the examination qua the same reads as under:

(i) The person who wrote the red enclosed standard signature stamped and marked A1, A2 and S1 to S8 did not write the red enclosed questioned signature similarly stamped and marked Q1.

This shows that Kulwant Kaur has not signed on the complaint.

Thus corroborates the allegation that the said signatures have been forged.

On the other hand, the specimen writing of Petitioner was marked from S9 to S12. The same was compared to the disputed signatures Q1. The result of the examination is as under:

It has not been possible to express any definite opinion regarding their common authorship or otherwise on the red enclosed question signature stamped and marked Q1 in comparison with the red enclosed specimen writings similarly stamped and marked S9 to S12. Suitable and sufficient specimen/admitted writings of the suspect in "Gurmukhi" already existing on some documents and near about the period of questioned signatures containing similar letters, words and combinations as are available in the questioned signature marked Q1 are required for thorough scientific examination and definite opinion.

It is evident from the above that at this stage, there is no conclusive proof of the fact that the Petitioner has not signed it. Thus, the report has to be co-related to the other evidence to be produced by the Prosecution Agency. The entire record is before the trial Court where the charges have yet to be framed.

Challan has already been filed. Moreover, it is a specific stand of the Prosecution Agency that an application/complaint dated 15.06.2006 on which Kulwant Kaur''s signatures were forged was moved at the behest of the present Petitioner. The Petitioner was responsible for filing of the said complaint. The signatures were being collected by him. Kulwant Kaur has given her affidavit, stating therein that she has not signed. Thus, it cannot be said, at this stage that there is no evidence against the Petitioner. The quality of evidence cannot be appreciated by the Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR.

In view of the above discussion, the argument that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the trial as the evidence collected is not likely to result in conviction and that the complaint is malicious and mala fide finds its answer in the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, , wherein, it was specifically held ;

As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in the court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.

Moreover, the Petitioner has not been able to show as to how the complaint is malicious and mala fide.

Even in the judgment rendered in the case of R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and another, , a note of caution was added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

Applying the test and the legal position as laid down in the cases of State of Orissa and Anr. (supra), as well as, State of Haryana (supra), the case, in hand, does not fall in any of the exceptions, as well as the expression "rarest of rare cases" wherein the FIR can be quashed while exercising power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Dismissed accordingly.