High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR registered for cheating, holding that the dispute involved disputed questions of fact regarding property ownership and did not disclose a clear offence.
FIR No. 55 dated 5.7.2008 and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-28292 of 2008 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-28292 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.09.2012
Major Singh and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.55 dated 5.7.2008, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Harike, Police District Tarn Taran.
The relevant part of the FIR reads as under: -
“........My deceased husband Kanwaljit Singh was employed in Distt. Amritsar and he died in a road accident on 12.11.2001. As per previous instructions I was inducted as a Constable in the year 2001. I have two small children and I am bringing them up. My in-law family have not given any due share of my deceased husband from property etc. My father in law Major Singh s/o Gurdial Singh r/o Gandiwind Dhatal P.S. Harike at present tenant of Nirdesh Singh Bat (USA Wale) Deep avenue Fateh Chowk Tarn Taran, who is employed at present with Sheromni Gurudwara Parbandak Committee at
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-28292 of 2008 (O&M)
Gurdwara Baba Deep Singh Sahid. He has sold the share of my deceased husband from the land situated in village Gandiwala Bakhal without my consent. My small children have right in this property. As such it is my request before you that from my aforesaid father in law Major Singh my and my children's share from the inherited land be got for me and justice be done to me and to my minor children.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2 on the ground that her husband had died and her father-in-law Major Singh and his brother have sold the property with mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant has presumed the share of her husband in the property without any evidence on record whether it is ancestral or otherwise. The police has nothing to do with such cases. This is sheer abuse of process of law. He further contends that if the complainant has any grievance, she can approach the civil Court and get the appropriate relief.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for complainantrespondent No.2 as well as the learned State counsel.
Learned counsel for the complainant states that the property in question was ancestral and her husband died in an accident on 12.11.2001, therefore, she was entitled to share in the said property. The said property has been sold with mala fide intention. In these circumstances, offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has argued that in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the disputed question of
-3-
Crl. Misc. No. M-28292 of 2008 (O&M)
fact cannot be gone into.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the record shows that in jamabandi for the year 2005-06 (Annexure A-1), the property has been shown in the name of Major Singh and no property was shown in the name of Kanwaljit Singh deceased, husband of respondent No.2. Furthermore, the mutation has been annexed with the file as Annexure A-2, which is sanctioned in the name of Gurdial Singh father of the petitioners and further in the name of Major Singh and others. Nowhere in the revenue record name of the husband of the complainant appears.
It is settled law that when the dispute is with regard to the ancestral property, then the parties are required to lead cogent evidence by calling the revenue record for proving the ancestral nature of the property. It is yet to be determined from which source the father of Major Singh or Major Singh himself had acquired the said property. It is also settled principle of law that even if the property is ancestral, the karta of the family can dispose of the property for bona fide needs of the family, which may be warranted in the circumstances of the case.
After going through the contents of the FIR, this Court is of the definite view that there is no question at all that the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. Since no offence is made out, this Court has every power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR when it is sheer abuse of process of law.
In view of the above, present petition is allowed. FIR No.55 dated 5.7.2008, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station
Crl. Misc. No. M-28292 of 2008 (O&M)
-4-
Harike, Police District Tarn Taran, along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it, is quashed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
September 11, 2012 R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 420 IPC is made out based on the dispute over ancestral property.
Whether the FIR amounts to an abuse of process of law warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Major Singh and another
State of Punjab
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
