Nirbhai Singh vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") has been preferred for quashing FIR No. 122 dated 20.12.2012, registered at Police Station Mullepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib for offence punishable under Sections 420, 456, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") (Annexure P-1) and proceedings emanating therefrom.

The criminal proceedings against the petitioners have been initiated at the behest of Bhupinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh, brother of Rajinder Kaur widow of Hakam Singh primarily on the allegations that the accused in pursuance of conspiracy prepared a forged pedigree table with an intent to deprive said Rajinder Kaur of her share in the land.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that Shamsher Singh petitioner No. 3 executed sale deed in favour of his sons Nirbhai Singh and Kesar Singh which was attested by Bhalinder Singh petitioner No. 4. It is argued with vehemence that even if the allegations raised in the FIR are accepted as correct, the same neither constitute offence of cheating defined in Section 415 IPC punishable u/s 420 thereof nor offence of forgery defined in Section 464 IPC and punishable in different circumstances under Sections 465 to 471 IPC.

Counsel for respondent No. 2, on the contrary, contends that in the pedigree table appended with the sale deed, name of Hakam Singh, predeceased son of Shamsher Singh and husband of Rajinder Kaur, sister of the complainant has been intentionally withheld to deprive Rajinder Kaur of her share in the property who later committed suicide. It is further argued that name of Laxman Singh, another son of Shamsher Singh who had also passed away, finds mention in the said pedigree table. According to counsel, in the pedigree table, name of Hakam Singh was concealed with a clear intent to commit fraud and the pedigree table was forged by the accused in connivance with each other, attracting the mischief of cheating as well as forgery.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, has dealt in detail the ingredients of offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC as well as forging a document as defined in Section 464

IPC punishable under Sections 465 to 471 IPC.

When the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case are examined in the light of enunciation of law laid down in Md. Ibrahim and others'' case (supra), the same by no stretch of imagination satisfy the ingredients of offence of cheating or forgery, therefore, I find force in the contentions of the petitioners that no case is made out against the petitioners for the offence, in regard whereof the instant FIR has been lodged by Bhupinder Singh. If the petitioners have filed a false pedigree table by withholding the name of Hakam Singh, they, at best, can be prosecuted by the concerned public servant before whom the said document was filed, by invoking provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law, therefore, cannot be allowed to continue.

For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed, FIR No. 122 dated 20.12.2012, registered at Police Station Mullepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib for offence punishable under Sections 420, 456, 468, 471, 120B IPC (Annexure P-1) and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.