Lahore Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and another

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this criminal misc. application, a prayer has been made to set aside order of cognizance dated 04.06.2007 and the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 2415 of 2007 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The said trial is pending against the petitioner Lahore Singh for the offence u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC.

The factual controversy behind this complaint is a sale deed executed by Sher Singh on dated 23.01.1986 in favour of Lahore Singh pertaining to his agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 561/03 measuring 0.0510 hectare situated in village Jwalapur, Tehsil Haridwar, District Haridwar (at that time District Saharanpur). After more than two decades, Sher Singh instituted a complaint against Lahore Singh with the allegations that latter has got executed a sale deed by cheating and has fabricated the same, in order to grab the land of Sher Singh. In addition to this complaint, a civil suit no. 218 of 2007 was also instituted by Sher Singh for cancellation of the sale deed but the same was dismissed on 01.10.2008 in non prosecution. It is also pertinent that nothing has come on record that restoration application was ever filed by Sher Singh or any appeal against the order of dismissal was ever filed. Meaning thereby, the order of dismissal of civil suit on dated 01.10.2008 will be deemed to have attained finality. Sher Singh examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses namely PW1 Ramesh Chand and PW2 Prem Singh were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Having gone through the facts and the statements of the complainant and witnesses, learned Magistrate passed impugned order of cognizance on 04.06.2007, which was stayed by this Court on 20.06.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during the span of 20 years, the prices of land skyrocketed, so this tempted Sher Singh to initiate proceedings against Lahore Singh, in both civil and criminal side. It has also been argued that another reason of above temptation to Sher Singh is that Lahore Singh neglected to initiate the proceedings for mutation in his name on the basis of above sale deed for a long time, but as he noticed the dishonest intention of Sher Singh, then he instituted proceedings in the concerned revenue court u/s 34/ 35 of Land Revenue Act for mutating his name, which bore case no. 2409 of 2007. The case was heard on merits by Tehsildar, Haridwar, who passed the order on dated 30.05.2008 on merits, allowing the mutation in favour of Lahore Singh on the basis of the said sale deed. Tehsildar has observed in his reasoned judgment that Sher Singh wants to protract the proceedings and does not want to permit the court to adjudicate the matter. When these proceedings were decided in favour of Lahore Singh, he got issued the copy of Khatauni showing his name upon Khata No. 774, Khasra No. 561/3 measuring 0.0510 hectare.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has relied upon the precedent of Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, wherein it was opined by the Hon''ble Apex Court that where civil remedy is availed of by the complainant, that by itself is not sufficient ground to quash the criminal proceedings by High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. because both proceedings can run parallel. In civil suit, the rights and liabilities can be determined on the separate footing and still delinquent can be found guilty for his alleged criminal act and be punished accordingly. This precedent of Hon''ble Apex Court is itself very relevant and salute worthy in all cases but in the instant case the situation is quite otherwise, all the facts and circumstances, as has been adverted by this Court explicitly divulged that the purpose of filing of complaint by Sher Singh against Lahore Singh is not genuine one. There is no cheating at all with him. There is no forgery or fabrication of any paper by Lahore Singh to grab the land. The only purpose of complainant Sher Singh to institute this complaint is to achieve his ulterior motive, which can be discern with the circumstances of shooting up of the prices of land, in question.

In view of the above, this petition has merits and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order of cognizance and complaint aforementioned are hereby quashed.