Milkhi Ram vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the quashing of complaint/FIR No. 122 dated 19.6.1998 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station Ellanabad, Sirsa pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The petitioners seek the quashing of the complaint on the ground that the court cannot take cognizance of the offences and issue direction to the police to register the case and investigate the same without a complaint in writing from the office of SubRegistrar where the offences allegedly took place in view of bar created by Section 196(1)(6)/195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is allegedly that the complainant, Chander Kanta, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2, filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Shri Ishwar Dutt, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioners, Milkhi, Ram Sat Pal and the nonpetitioners Leela Devi, Satish Kumar, Chaman Lal, Mathura Dass and Desh Raj alleging, inter alia, that her marriage was solemnised on 27.6.1991 according to Hindu rites in Hisar. A sum of Rs. 3,08,197/ was spent in the marriage. The inlaws of the complainant, Chander Kanta, i.e. fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, sistersinlaw, namely Reshma, Raj, Rita, Veena and the husband Sat Pal started teasing the complainant, Chander Kanta for bringing less dowry and they demanded a car, A.C. and cash amount. The marriage was duly consummated and two sons Anmol and Sanjay were born out of the wedlock on 23.9.1992 and 13.3.1994 respectively who were living in the custody of the Chander Kanta. The applicant, Chander Kanta was thrown out of her matrimonial house after being given a beating on 7.10.1995 and she was living with her parents in Hissar. A panchayat was convened on 19.5.1996 which was attended by her husband and inlaws. The husband, Sat Pal, apologized for his behaviour in writing and the same was signed by his father, Milkhi Ram and sisterinlaw, Radha. The remaining members of the family of the husband refused to sign. The accused had raised demand for Car and A.C. before the Panchayat also and they refused to return articles of dowry. A case under Sections 406, 498A IPC was got registered on 3.1.1998 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. On 10.1.1998, the accused with mutual negotiations assured that they would not tease Chander Kanta for demanding of dowry and also told that they had transferred a residential house in the name of Chander Kanta on 6.1.1998 registered in the office of the Registrar, Ellanabad. The registered document was handed over to the applicant. The brother of the applicant, her father, mother and a neighbour were present at that time. They also requested the applicant, Chander Kanta to accept the registry and withdraw the case registered against the accused. On 11.1.1998, Chander Kanta along with her brother, Madan Lal same was sent for registration and Investigation of the case to Ellanabad and found residential house No. 5884, Ward No. 9 which was shown as transferred to her was not registered in the record of Municipal Committee in the name of transferee. The

applicant, Chander Kanta met Shri Sohan Lal, Advocate who had described the agreement and he told her that he had written the facts as supplied by accused 1 to 7 and if there is no house on the site then Sat Pal, the husband of the applicant is responsible for this cheating. The applicant and her brother met Shri Ghisa Ram, M.C. Ellanabad and Raj Kumar and Sita Ram who told her that they had signed the document on the blind faith of accused 1 to 7 and if the accused had cheated her then they were ready to give evidence. A Panchayat was called on 11.1.1998 where the accused 1 to 7 asked the witnesses to withdraw the case registered against them and asked the applicant, Chander Kanta to live in Ellanabad. Chander Kanta, however, enquired from the accused about the said cheating and she was told that this was done only to cheat her and to eliminate her. It was further alleged that the accused got prepared the false document only to harass and cheat the applicant and to save their skin from the cases registered against them by the applicant, Chander Kanta who prayed that these accused be summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 IPC.

The petitioners, Milkhi Ram and Sat Pal seek the quashing of this complaint on the grounds, apart from the bar of Section 196(1)(6)/195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. that Milkhi Ram, petitioner No. 1 registered the giftdeed of his residential house. Respondent No. 2, Chander Kanta and her brother Madan Lal, respondent No. 5 wanted to resale the house to a strong man who will dislodge the petitioner from his residential house. Petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that he will continue to be the owner in possession of his residential house. It was alleged that the giftdeed was got executed from the petitioner, Milkhi Ram by the Panchayat as a security and to test his bonafideness for compromising the matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 1, Sat Pal and his wife, Chander Kanta, respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the giftdeed was not to be acted upon as per the assurance given by the Panchayat members. The giftdeed was not accepted by the donee. Petitioner No. 2, Sat Pal had signed the giftdeed on behalf of Chander Kanta considering the deed as a security only. It was mentioned that the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa directed the parties to maintain statusquo regarding the possession of the residential house in civil suit No. 158L/1998. It was further contended that a bare reading of the impugned complaint will go to show that the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 IPC were not prima facie made out. The continuance of the FIR and the consequential proceedings were abuse of the process of the Court and the same would amount to the harassment of the petitioners.

Notice was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 1, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ellanabad filed his written statement on her behalf and also on behalf of respondents 3 to 6.

Smt. Chander Kanta, complainant, respondent No. 2, was married with Sat Pal, petitioner No. 2, son of petitioner No. 1, Milkhi Ram son of Hari Chand resident of Ward No. 8, Ellanabad, District Sirsa. There was a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 2, Sat Pal and his wife, Chander Kanta, respondent No. 2. Chander Kanta, respondent No. 2 had filed FIR No. 39 dated 12.1.1998 under Sections 406, 498A IPC which was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar. The allegations made in the complaint/FIR that the marriage of respondent No. 2, Chander Kanta, was duly consummated with Sat Pal, petitioner No. 2 and two sons, namely, Anmol and Sanjay were born out of the wedlock on 23.9.1992 and 13.3.1994 respectively. Respondent No. 2, Chander Kanta was allegedly beaten and turned out of the matrimonial house on 7.10.1995. It was alleged that the dispute was sought to be settled and on 10.1.1998, the petitioner, Milkhi Ram, compromised with respondent No. 2, Chander Kanta to keep her well and not to harass her or torture her and in order to see that she joins the company of her husband, Sat Pal, petitioner No. 2, Milkhi Ram, petitioner No. 1, executed a giftdeed on 6.1.1998 of his residential house situated in Ellanabad. It is in respect of this giftdeed that the impugned FIR was lodged which was in the form of a complaint filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and the same was sent for registration and Investigation of the case to the police and was registered as FIR No. 122 dated 19.6.1998 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 IPC. The allegations made in the impugned complaint, inter alia, were that the informant/complainant, Chander Kanta, respondent No. 2 did not accept the giftdeed of the residential house, which was executed by Milkhi Ram, and had sought time during which period she learnt the next day i.e. on 11.1.1998 that there was no house recorded in the records of Municipal Committee at No. 5884 in Ward No. 8. All these averments alleged that the petitioners had committed fraud, cheating, forgery etc. with a view to defraud the complainant. The petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned complainant on the ground that prima facie the offences are not made out and that as a matter of fact, the giftdeed was not executed with the intention of gifting the house to respondent No. 2, Chander Kanta but it was executed only with a view to see that Chander Kanta joined the company of her husband, Sat Pal and all the matrimonial disputes were settled between them. It has also been contended that as a matter of fact there was no benefit taken by the petitioner, Milkhi Ram from the execution of the giftdeed and no offence of cheating was prima facie shown. It was further contended that the saledeed dated 10.8.1961 which was filed with the miscellaneous case No. 2427 of 1999 showed that Najar Singh son of Shri Ram Singh resident of Ellanabad, Tehsil Sirsa had sold land to Milkhi Ram, petitioner No. 1. The copy of the saledeed along with its English and Hindi version were placed on record. The saledeed was registered at Sr. No. 232 dated 20.10.1961 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sirsa. It is not disputed that the petitioner, Milkhi Ram had a residential house in which he alongwith the only son, Sat Pal resided and in that house respondent No. 2, Chander Kanta also resided. It may be pointed out that at this stage it will be not appropriate to make any comments regarding the merit or otherwise of the case of the petitioners because a civil suit in respect of the giftdeed is pending in the Civil Court being Civil Suit No. 158C of 1998 which was instituted on 31.3.1998 by Milkhi Ram, petitioner No. 1 against Smt. Rani @ Chander Kanta wife of Sat Pal, respondent No. 2 and Sat Pal son of Milkhi Ram (petitioner No. 2). In the said civil suit the petitioner, Milkhi Ram has sought a declaration to the effect that he continued to be the owner of possession of the residential house bearing Municipal Council Unit No. 2791 situated in Ward No. 8, Ellanabad which was purchased by him vide saledeed No. 232 dated 20.10.1961 and the giftdeed dated 6.1.1998 registered at Sr. No. 1779 in the Office of the SubRegistrar, Ellanabad is ineffective qua his ownership and possessory rights over the above residential house and the above said giftdeed was got executed from the plaintiff by the Panchayat as security and to test his bonafideness for compromising the matrimonial dispute between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 and as a matter of fact the giftdeed was not to be acted upon as per assurance given by the mediators/Panchayat members. It was also sought to be declared that the giftdeed was never executed by the donee, defendant No. 1 and rather defendant No. 2 put his signature on the giftdeed on her behalf considering the same as a security paper only. Petitioner No. 1, Milkhi Ram, also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No 1, Smt. Rani @ Chander Kanta from causing interference in any manner whatsoever into the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the above residential house and also from eliminating in any manner the above said residential house and from creating any charge/encumbrances thereon on the basis of the evidence of every description oral as well as documentary. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sirsa passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession vide order dated 7.4.1998, copy Annexure P2. Since the rights in respect of the disputed house are pending decision before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in which the whole transaction regarding the giftdeed having been executed in favour of the complainant, respondent No. 2, Smt. Chander Kanta is involved, it will be appropriate that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners be stayed to await the final outcome of the civil suit. It will only be appropriate and proper after the civil suit is decided that the offences, if any, under the impugned complaint/FIR are properly adjudicated.

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of by staying the proceedings pending before the criminal court of competent jurisdiction dealing with the impugned complaint/FIR till the civil suit aforesaid is decided by the Civil Court. The question of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences because of the alleged bar of Section 195/196 Cr.P.C. will be considered by the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage on a plea which may be raised by the petitioners before him.

Disposed of accordingly.