Tarsem Lal vs Koer Chand and Another

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Tarsem Lal and others filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint dated 18.3.1992 Annexure P1 and summoning order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka Annexure P2 whereby the petitioners were directed to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Koer Chand and Shambhu Nath respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Fazilka on the allegations that House No. 3986 situated on Bikaneri Road, Fazilka was owned by Sardi Devi wife of Gurdit Chand. After the death of Sardi Devi the house was inherited by her husband Gurdit Chand and her seven sons and one daughter. Gurdit Chand died and his share was also inherited by his sons and daughter. One of the sons of Sain Dass also expired and Shambhu Nath, his brothers and sisters become owners of his share in the house. Petitioners No. 1 to 6 were coowners but in connivance with petitioners No. 7 and 8 they sold the house on that they were not exclusive owners of the house and the complainants had also a share in the same. The house was actually sold for Rs. 2.50 lacs but in the sale deeds the sale price was shown as Rs. 20,000/ and 22,000/.

Preliminary evidence was recorded and the trial Court found that there were sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and they were summoned accordingly.

The petitioners alleged that Gurdit Chand was the owner of the house which was his self acquired property and he bequeathed the same to them vide a registered Will. They continued to be in possession of whole of the house till 13.1.1992 without any objection. On the basis of the registered Will they could transfer the same and if the respondents had any grievance they could approach the Civil Court to challenge the legality and validity of the Will. The dispute between the parties was purely of a civil nature and no offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was made out. The civil dispute could not be allowed to be converted into a criminal offence for ulterior motive.

In the return filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the petition were denied and it was maintained that present wrong is of civil as well as of a criminal nature and that the wrongdoer could be prosecuted and could also be sued for damages. The conduct of the petitioners contained the element of culpability and they were liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

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

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Gurdit Chand predecessorininterest of the petitioner was the owner of the house in question. It was his self acquired property and he executed a registered Will with respect to this property in their favour photostat copy of which was Annexure P.3. This Will was executed on 5.5.1976 and thereafter the petitioners continued to be in possession of the house as owners. Gurdit Chand had specifically excluded his two sons Sain Dass and Hans Raj from inheritance as well as his daughter Daropati. The dispute between the parties is, therefore, regarding the property left by Gurdit Chand deceased for which the complainant could approach a civil court.

It was also urged that the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were also not spelled out and the complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground also. There was no dispute between the petitioners who had sold the house and the persons who purchased the same. There was no cheating by the petitioners No. 1 to 5 nor petitioners No. 6 and 7 had any grouse against the vendors. They never contended that they were deceived or dishonestly induced to deliver any property.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel and I find that the same is quite valid. To constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that there must be inducement on the part of the accused and inducement should be made fraudulently or dishonestly with a view to deceive a person and as a result of the inducement the person so deceived delivered property to accused persons or gave consent that accused person may retain the same there is no question of cheating the complainants no inducing them fraudulently to deliver any property. Vendees have absolutely no grouse against the vendors. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that prima facie any case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondents also conceded that no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was disclosed but he asserted that ingredients of the offence under Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code were spelled out as there were false statements regarding consideration in the sale deeds. This contention of the learned counsel is untenable as ingredients of the offence under Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code are also not made out. By simply alleging that there was a false statement relating to consideration it cannot be assumed that the execution of the deed of transfer wad dishonest or fraudulent. Every word in the section and all its ingredients are important. The petitioners were never summoned to stand trial for an offence under Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code and the summoning order was not assailed by the respondents. As the averments made in the complaint do not prima facie disclose the ingredients of any offence and the dispute between the parties relates to inheritance of the property left by Gurdit Chand the complainant cannot be allowed to pursue the criminal proceedings with an ulterior purposes as that Will amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and quash the complaint Annexure P1 and the summoning order Annexure P2.