Surinder Singh and Another vs State of Haryana and Another

Sabina, J.—Vide this judgment, the above-mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 204 dated 26.3.2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''IPC'' for short) (Annexure P2) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the FIR itself would reveal that no offence could be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Petitioners had neither executed the agreement to sell in question nor had signed the same as the attesting witnesses. Petitioners-Sukhwinder Singh, Rajinder Singh and Major Singh had been falsely involved in this case being sons of accused-Kashmir Singh.

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

Prosecution story, in brief, as per FIR is that the complainant-Tek Ram had agreed to purchase land from Angrej Singh. An agreement to sell in this regard was executed on 13.04.2011. Complainant paid Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the earnest money to Angrej Singh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 26.07.2011. However, the sale deed had not been executed in favour of the complainant. Kashmir Singh had executed the sale deed in favour of his wife on 27.6.2011. Puran Singh and Surinder Singh were present at the time of execution of the agreement to sell.

The agreement to sell in question is Annexure P4 (in Crl. Misc. M. No. 22055 of 2012). A perusal of the same reveals that it had not been signed by the petitioners. As per the agreement to sell, it is Angrej Singh, son of Kashmir Singh, who had agreed to sell 24 kanals of land to the complainant. A note had been given in the said agreement that Angrej Singh would be bound to call his father with regard to registration of sale deed to extent of one acre of land. However, petitioners can not be said to be having any concern or connectivity with the agreement to sell in question. The agreement to sell in question was witnessed by Ishwar Singh and Naresh Kumar. Petitioners-Surinder Singh and Puran Singh were stated to be merely present at the time of execution of agreement to sell. It appears that Surinder Singh and Puran Singh have been named in the FIR due to their relationship with accused Kashmir Singh. Petitioners had neither executed the agreement to sell in question in favour of the complainant nor had attested the said agreement to sell. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law., Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. FIR No. 204 dated 26.3.2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P2) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.