Sadhu Ram and Others vs State of Haryana

Pritam Pal, J.—The petitioners have brought this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 275 dated 28.6.2007 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Without going into details, suffice it to say that there is a landed-property of 86 Kanals 11 Marlas in the name of Dera Nirankarian (a religious institution) (hereinafter referred to as �the Dera�) situated in village Kirmach, earlier falling within the jurisdiction of District Karnal and now after the issuance of notification by the State of Haryana, dated 17.10.1989, within the jurisdiction of District Kurukshetra...

Sadhu Ram, petitioner No. 1, got executed a registered Will in his name in respect of the aforesaid land of the Dera by playing fraud upon the Mahant of the Dera in the year 1977. Thereafter, on 6.9.1989, Sadhu Ram further transferred this land through a civil court decree in favour of his sons i.e. petitioners No. 2 and 3. With this aforesaid act of getting the land of the Dera transferred fraudulently in the name of individuals (petitioners), the members of Dera Nirankariayan Mandir Sudhar Sabha, Kirmach, (hereinafter referred to as �Mandir Sabha�) had protested against the petitioners. Ultimately, a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioners in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Kurukshetra for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 504, 506 and 34 IPC by the Mandir Sabha, through Ronki Ram and Faggu Ram, its President and Member respectively. After that, the said complaint was sent to the Police Station, Kurukshetra u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and thereupon FIR No. 29 dated 8.2.2007 was registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code The Incharge of Police Station, Kurukshetra, after making his investigation, submitted his report dated 28.4.2007 for cancellation of the aforesaid case. However, Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, did not agree with the aforesaid report of the Investigating Officer. He then referred the matter to be investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and on receipt of the report of Deputy Superintendent of Police, came to the conclusion, vide his report, dated 21.6.2007, that there is a force in the allegations levelled by the executive members of the Mandir Sabha. The Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra further opined, in his aforesaid report, that since the criminal...acts constituting the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 504, 506, 34 IPC were committed in the years 1977 and 1989, within the jurisdiction of the then District Karnal, therefore, a case should be got registered there at Karnal only. In his aforesaid report, dated 21.6.2006, the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra also made clear to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, that the alleged forged Will pertaining to the landed property of the Dera was executed at Karnal and the decree dated 6.9.1989 was also passed by the Civil Court at Karnal. Therefore, the criminal case against the petitioners should be registered at Karnal. Thereupon, the present case bearing FIR No. 275 dated 28.6.2007 has been registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Karnal and now the investigation is still at an initial stage.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the Mandir Sabha had also challenged the Will and decree executed and registered at Karnal in favour of petitioner No. 1 and his sons respectively, which have now been set-aside by the civil court. Thereafter the appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1 before the learned District Judge was also dismissed. These facts have been concealed in this petition, by the petitioners, in a very clandestine manner. Now R.S.A. No. 4733 of 2004 is stated to have been filed by the petitioner which is pending adjudication before this Court.

Now, the only noticeable point of argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that two F.I.Rs. registered on the same allegations, against the petitioners, cannot survive. In support of his this contention he has placed reliance upon Thelapalli Raghavaiah v. Station House Officer and Ors. 2007 (2) R.C.R. 374 and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala 2001 (3) R.C.R. 436. His this aforesaid contention, on the face of it, appeared to be very plausible and as such, notice of motion was also issued on this very ground. But in view of the above discussion his this argument merits no credence inasmuch as it has been made clear by learned State counsel that the investigation in the earlier FIR has been stopped at Kurukshetra after ascertaining the fact that the occurrence in fact, had taken place within the jurisdiction of Police Station and District, Karnal. So, now the present FIR in question is the only FIR against the petitioners, which is being investigated by the police of District Karnal for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

In this view of the matter, this Court finds nothing wrong in the registration of case within the jurisdiction of Police Station and District Karnal. I have also gone through the aforesaid rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and find that the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand and thus, no benefit can be derived at this stage by learned Counsel for the petitioners, from the observations made therein by their lordships of the Apex Court.

In the result, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.