CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.50108 OF 2005 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 01, 2008
Harpreet Singh and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. G.S.Sidhu & Mr.Vikrant Oberoi, Advocates,
for the petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Brar, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This order will dispose of two Criminal Misc. M No.50108
of 2005 (Harpreet Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab) and
57280 of 2005 (Kulwant Singh Gulati and others Vs. State of
Punjab).
The petitioners have filed these petitions for quashing of
FIR No.56 dated 16.7.2005 registered under Sections 406, 465, 467,
468, 474 IPC. This FIR is lodged by Dharam Chand, who initially was
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.50108 OF 2005 :{ 2 }:
not impleaded as respondent. However, on 18.7.2006, he was
ordered to be served and accordingly appearance was put on his
behalf on 17.11.2006. The counsel had taken time to file reply but till
date, no reply has been filed. The petition was admitted on 28.3.2007
and further proceedings stayed.
As per the allegation, the complainant had entered into an
agreement with Kulwant Singh, father of petitioner No.1 and Uncle of
petitioner No.2 for sale of agriculture land measuring 15 bighas 5
biswas situated in village Suja, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. Rate
agreed was Rs.26,000/- per bigha and an amount of Rs.2,20,000/-
was paid as earnest money. The agreement to sell was duly
executed. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.5.1998,
upon receipt of the balance amount. The true translated copy of the
agreement to sell is on record as Annexure P-1/T.
It is claimed that Dharam Chand could not execute the
sale deed before the date fixed in the agreement and accordingly
time was extended upto 15.9.1999. This was on receipt of another
sum of Rs.60,000/-. The extension was in the presence of witnesses
like Nachhattar Singh and Niranjan Singh, who had witnessed the
original agreement to sell. The true translated copy of the document,
extending time of agreement is at Annexure P-2/T. Time was again
extended upto 30.11.1999 on the same terms and conditions. This
was witnessed by Mahinder Singh son of Gurdev Singh and
Gurcharan Singh son of Harnek Singh. The true translation of this
document is also on record as Annexure P-3/T. It is alleged that still
Dharam Chand did not execute the sale deed despite grant of
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.50108 OF 2005 :{ 3 }:
extension and instead sold 7 bighas out of this land to one
Maninderjit Singh, minor son of Hakam Singh. Copy of this sale deed
is placed on record as Annexure P-4. Father of petitioner No.1, with
whom Dharam Chand had entered into an agreement, thereafter
filed a suit for specific performance on 18.5.2001. Copy of the plaint
is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. The suit was contested
by Dharam Chand. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was led in
the civil suit and the plaintiff’s evidence concluded on 19.1.2004.
Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of defendant. Instead of
producing his evidence, the defendant took adjournments on one
pretext or the other and in the meantime, filed a complaint for
registration of a case against the petitioners and father of petitioner
No.1. The complaint was entrusted to DSP for enquiry, who
recommended that the complaint be filed. However, still on exerting
political pressure, the impugned FIR was registered against the
petitioners and father of petitioner No.1. The petitioners and father of
petitioner No.1 and the witnesses who have also been roped in have
filed two separate petitions, seeking quashing of this FIR.
Though initially, the quashing of the FIR was sought on
various grounds that a perusal of the FIR would not reveal offences
alleged etc. but during the pendency of the case, the civil suit filed by
the petitioners, for specific performance stands decided. Copy of the
decision given by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha, was placed on
record through Criminal Misc. Application No.46995 of 2008, which
was allowed on 25.11.2008.
Mr.K.S.Sidhu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.50108 OF 2005 :{ 4 }:
petitioners, has raised a single fold submission in support of his plea.
He would refer to the finding returned by the Civil Court in regard to
the agreement to sell. As pointed out by the counsel, two of specific
issues as were framed by the Civil Court on the basis of pleadings
are as follow:-
“5. Whether the alleged agreement is false and
fabricated? OPD
6. Whether the agreement dated 2.1.98 is forged
document and plaintiff is liable to prosecute under
criminal law? OPD”
The counsel has then drawn my attention to the findings
on these two issues. After referring to the evidence in detail led by
the respective parties, the Civil Court has held as under on Issue
No.5:-
“During the course of arguments ld. Counsel for the
defendants had also pointed out that the sale
consideration is an inadequate. In these regard the cross-
examination of defendant witness DW4 can be gone into,
who himself stated that when a person requires some
money even he may sell the land at low costs. Therefore,
this objection does not hold much ground. Therefore,
from the above discussion, it is observed that
defendant No.1 has entered into an agreement to sell
dated 2.1.98 Ex.P1 which was later on extended vide
Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Hence, all these issues are decided in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.”
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.50108 OF 2005 :{ 5 }:
Similarly, issue No.6 has also been decided in favour of
the petitioners and finding in this regard is as under:-
“The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
As it has been observed in the above discussion, the
agreement dated 2.1.98 is not forged and fabricated
document and hence this issue is disposed of
accordingly.”
Thus, the Civil Court has found it as a matter of fact that
the agreement dated 2.1.1998, Ex.P1, which is alleged to be forged,
was genuinely entered into between father of petitioner No.1 and the
complainant. It is also observed that time to execute this agreement
to sell was extended, as seen from Exs.P3 and P4 annexed with the
civil suit. Accordingly, Issue No.5 has been decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant, who is complainant in the present
FIR. A specific finding has also been returned by the Civil Court that
the agreement dated 2.1.1998 is not a forged and fabricated
document and hence, this issue has also been disposed of
accordingly.
Taking support from this finding of the Civil Court,
Mr.Sidhu submits that this finding of the Civil Court would be binding
on the criminal court and as such, further prosecution of the
petitioner with the allegation that the alleged agreement to sell was a
forged, can not be permitted to continue. Learned counsel refers to a
case of M/s Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another Vs. Union
of India and others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1244 in this regard.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has held that decision of the
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.50108 OF 2005 :{ 6 }:
civil courts are binding on criminal courts but the converse may not
be true. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
this case read as under:-
“……..It is a well established principle of law that the
decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal
courts. The converse is not true. The High Court after
entertaining the writ petitions and hearing arguments on
the merits of the case should not have dismissed the
petitions merely because certain consequential
proceedings had been taken on the basis that the exports
in question were illegal. For the decision of the
controversy between the parties to the writ petitions
neither the presence of the State of West Bengal nor the
authorities who took penal action was necessary. The
validity of the steps taken by them, as mentioned earlier
would depend upon the validity or otherwise of the export
in question.”
Reference is also made to the decision of this Court in
Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2004 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 428. In this case, FIR was lodged under various Sections
of the IPC on the ground that Government servant has altered the
date of birth from 30.9.1929 to 1.10.1930 in the official record. Civil
Court gave a finding that date of birth was 1.10.1930 and criminal
proceedings pending against the delinquent were quashed, holding
that in view of the finding of the Civil Court, continuation of FIR is
nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. This Court in
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.50108 OF 2005 :{ 7 }:
Krishan Jeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 183 has also taken somewhat identical view by observing
that when criminal and civil proceedings are pending and in a divorce
petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, allegations of cruelty are not
proved, this judgment of the Civil Court would be binding on the
criminal Court and charge of cruelty in criminal proceedings was
dropped.
It is, thus, clear that the main allegations for which the
petitioners are being prosecuted related to the agreement dated
2.1.1998 to be forged one. The finding given by the Civil Court that
this agreement is genuine and is not a fabricated or forged
document, will bind any finding, which the criminal court may
ultimately reach. This is, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Court as noticed above. Once this finding
has come in favour of the petitioners, which is not impugned by the
complainant but is in appeal by the petitioners on different point,
these findings on Issue Nos.5 and 6 have acquired finality.
In view of the ratio of law laid down in the judgments
noticed above, the present criminal proceedings against the
petitioners, thus, can not be permitted to continue. The FIR and all
subsequent proceedings are therefore quashed.
Both the petitions are accordingly allowed.
December 01,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE