Raj Rani vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J

Raj Rani has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Calendar submitted by police of Police Station City Panipat under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code against her, the same being an abuse of the process of the court.

The facts giving rise to this petition are that one H.K.L. Mohan brother of Ram Mohan was in possession of certain property as an owner. He was alleged to have executed a will dated 13.4.1987 in favour of Ram Mohan and after the death of Shri H.K.L. Mohan, Ram Mohan became the owner of the property which was bequeathed to him by his brother. One Sunil Kumar entered into an agreement to sell the property owned by Shri H. K. L. Mohan to Raj Rani and executed an agreement on 15.12.1987 for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/. He received Rs. 1,00,000/ as earnest money from Raj Rani. Raj Rani filed a complaint under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 477 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against Ram Mohan and seven other persons alleging that in fact Shri H. K. L. Mohan had not executed any will in favour of Ram Mohan and the alleged will was a forged document. It did not contain signatures of H. K. L. Mohan. The complaint was filed in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat who sent the same to Station House Officer, Police Station Panipat for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order copy of which is Annexure P 5. After investigation of the case, it was found that the complaint filed by Raj Rani was false and signatures on the will tallied with the proved signatures of H.K.L Mohan and were to forged. Calendar Annexure P7 was thus presented against Raj Rani under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner averred that Ram Mohan had filed a suit against her alleging that he was owner in possession of the property on the basis of the will, which was previously owned by his brother H. K. L. Mohan. She too had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Ram Mohan and one Sunil Kumar adopted son of H. K. L. Mohan from alienating the property in question. The question whether the alleged will was a genuine document or not, is to be decided by the civil court and the calendar submitted against her was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It was presented just to harass her.

In the return filed by the respondent, it was contended that the petitioner had filed a complaint which was sent to Police Station City Panipat under section 156(3) Cr PC by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat on the basis which case FIR No. 490 dated 4.10.1988 was registered. Investigation in the case was conducted. The original will executed by H.KL Mohan the register of the Deed Writer and signatures of H. K. L. Mohan from Punjab National Bank, were obtained. These documents were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Madhuban for comparison of the signatures and on the basis of the report received from Forensic Science Laboratory, a report for cancellation of the case FIR No 490 was sent to the Court. A calendar was also prepared under Section 211 Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against Raj Rani.

I have heard the counsel for the parties. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Raj Rani had agreed to purchase House No. 597, Model Town, Panipat from Sunil Kumar on 15.12.1987 and paid Rs. 1,00,000/ as earnest money but Ram Mohan asserted his ownership with respect to this property, on the basis of the will, alleged to have been executed in his favour by his brother H. K. L. Mohan. So, Raj Rani filed complaint against Ram Mohan and others who attested the will. Raj Rani had also filed civil suit for permanent injunction against Sunil Kumar and Ram Mohan and copy of the plaint was Annexure P.1. Another civil suit had been filed by Ram Mohan for permanent injunction restraining Haryana State Electricity Board from releasing electric connection in favour of the petitioner. Copy of the order passed in that suit is Annexure P.2. As the civil court was seized of the matter and was to give findings as to whether the will was genuine or forged, the presentation of Calendar under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. This contention of the learned counsel is not well merited and is devoid of any force. The petitioner has failed to show that there is any civil litigation pending between her and Ram Mohan where the validity of the alleged will is in issue. Copy of the plaint in the suit filed by Ram Mohan is not placed on record.. JUDGMENT Annexure P1 shows that the dispute related only to releasing of an electric connection. The petitioner herself filed suit for permanent injunction restraining Sunil Kumar and Ram Mohan from alienating the property in question, except to her and she had not filed any suit for specific performance of the agreement alleged to have been executed in her favour by Sunil Kumar.

The petitioner in her complaint Annexure P4 alleged that the will dated 13.4.1987 alleged to have been executed by H. K. L. Mohan was bogus and fictitious and it did not bear the signatures of the deceased. Dharam Pal, Ravinder Kumar and Parladh Singh attested the bogus will but when the signatures on the will were got compared with the signatures of the deceased obtained from Punjab National Bank and with the signatures in the register of the Deed Writer, the same tallied. Thus a report was made for cancellation of the First Information Report recorded at the instance of Raj Rani and a prayer was made for initiating proceedings under Section 211 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The calendar disclosed a prima facie offence and it is neither frivolous nor vexatious. The ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed are disclosed and there is no material as yet to show that the calendar is malafide. It has been well settled by a long course of decisions that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr PC to quash a FIR a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same. The present case is not one which justifies the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court. As a result I dismiss this petition.