Sukhdev Singh vs Gurnam Singh

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

The petitioner''s learned counsel contended that this is a fit case wherein FIR No. 137/87 dated 1.6.1987 Police Station Banga, District Jalandhar, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. should be quashed. According to him, firstly, the report was lodged by the complainant Gurnam Singh on 21.5.1987. The Petitioner filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. on 28.2.1989. Till then, no progress was made in the criminal prosecution. Hence relying on M/s Vedsons Steels & Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 507 , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on this count alone, the FIR should be quashed.

The respondents learned counsel argued that Gurnam Singh lodged the complaint on 21.5.1987. The police registered the case on 1.6.1987. Expert''s report was received on 21.4.1989. The Investigation Officer was proceeding with the investigation but in the meantime on the petition filed by the petitioner under consideration, the stay was granted by this Court on 13 1989. Hence further investigation could not be concluded.

The petitioner''s above assailment has no foundation. The respondents have filed certain documents showing that the investigation was in progress, but on 131989, the petitioner obtained a stay order from this court. Hence the petitioner cannot be allowed to complain that since 161987 no progress has been made in the criminal case and the prosecution has not been launched against him.

The petitioner''s Counsel relying on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866 vehemently stressed that from the FIR offences under sections 467 and 468, I.P.C. are not made out. Hence the Court should quash the FIR.

So far as R.P. Kapur''s decision is concerned in that case the Apex Court has laid down the broad parameters under which the High Court is empowered to exercise it inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage. In this case the facts are quite different. No doubt, Gurnam Singh, respondent, initially agreed to sell his agricultural land to Sukhdev Singh, petitioner, for Rs. 9000/ per kanal before 21st of March, 1986. As per the agreement, the Sale Deed was to be executed on 2131986, but on this date, the petitioner Sukhdev Singh did not appear in the office of Sub Registrar while Gurnam Singh was present. Later on, on 2541986, as per FIR, Sukhdev Singh petitioner fraudulently got registered Sale Deed of Gurnam Singh''s land in favour of his three sons. According to Gurnam Singh, he was not present in Sub Registrar''s office on 2541986 and he never appended his signature on the aforesaid fraudulent Sale Deed. Gurnam Singh filed a civil suit against Sukhdev Singh and his sons on 1721987 for declaration to the effect that the Sale Deed dated 2841986 is null and void, ineffective, fictitious and a fabricated document. Both the parties admit that now this civil suit is decided by Shri R.S. Walia, Additional Senior Sub Judge Nawanshahar. In this judgment it is held that the Sale Deed dated 2841986 is the result of impersonation to defeat the proprietary rights vesting in the plaintiff in respect of the land comprised therein. In that civil suit, defendant Sukhdev Singh examined Jawala Ram, an attesting witness to the said Sale Deed, but he has not supported the defendant in that case. He categorically denied the attestation of Sale Deed by him.

During arguments, the learned Counsel for the State disclosed that this very witness has been examined by the Investigating Officer in the criminal case. Another attesting witness has died, but his affidavit is with the Investigating Officer. Signatures on the disputed Sale Deed were sent for comparison to handwriting expert. He had submitted his report on 2141989. Counsel for the private respondent has placed on record these documents. From a bare perusal of these documents, it is evident that the learned petitioner Counsel''s this contention has little force that offences under which the FIR is registered are not made out from the FIR or from the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.

Petitioner''s learned Counsel''s contention is that Gurnam Singh filed a civil suit which was partly decreed in his favour. Both the parties preferred appeals against that judgment and decree. Thus the matter is subjudice on the civil side. Hence the criminal prosecution on the same ground cannot be allowed to proceed. On this account, he also prayed that FIR be quashed.

Counsel appearing for the State relying on Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter, 478, Court on its own motion v. Smt. Kailash Rani, 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 661 , Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 420 and Misri Lal v. Tota Ram, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 319 contended that filing of civil suit operates on a different plane and has a different scope. Civil and Criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously. He further pointed out that civil and criminal proceedings can be continued simultaneously and if one of the proceedings is to be stopped at all, it is the civil proceedings that are stayed.

In Ishar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) Recent Criminal Reports 162 , it is reiterated that normally Court will not interfere with investigation of an offence and will generally allow the investigation to be completed. If, however, on consideration of relevant materials, no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of Court to interfere with investigation and stop the same to prevent unnecessary harassment to an individual and if from the FIR prima facie the case against the accused is not disclosed, FIR should be quashed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

In this case, as I have discussed above, the respondents have placed material on record showing that from the FIR as well as the evidence collected so far in the criminal case, the aforesaid offences are prima facie made out. Thus there is no reason to quash the FIR on this ground. Apart from this the Civil Court has already held that the alleged Sale Deed was not executed by Gurnam Singh. The attesting witness Jawala Ram examined in that case has also been interrogated by the Investigating Officer in this criminal prosecution. Affidavit of another attesting witness is with the police. This attesting witness is reported to be dead. The legal position is thus crystal clear that civil and criminal liabilities are distinct on the same cause/ground. Both the proceedings can proceed simultaneously. There is enough material on record to support the allegations made in the FIR by Gurnam Singh. Hence, it cannot be said that this stage that from the FIR, the aforesaid offences are not prima facie made out.

Accordingly, the petition filed under section 482, Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Consequently, stay granted vide this Court''s order dated 181989 stands vacated.