This dismissal rejects a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs based on delay and laches. The Court holds the petition is barred as a second revision under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and distinguishes cited precedents due to different factual matrices.
Petition dismissed in limine without expressing opinion on merits.
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-13564 of 2013 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-13564 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 01, 2013
Mohinderpal Singh
.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. P. S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 23257 of 2013 :
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case :
Mohinderpal Singh – Advocate, who is accused in FIR No.132 dated 09.10.1999, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1), has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR
Crl. Misc. No. M-13564 of 2013 (O&M) 2
(Annexure P-1), order dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure P-2), thereby dismissing petitioner's application for discharging him in the case, judgment dated 22.05.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by revisional court thereby dismissing petitioner's revision petition against order Annexure P-2 and consequent charge-sheet dated 09.04.2013 (Annexure P-5), framed by the trial Magistrate.
In nut-shell, prosecution version is that the petitioner wrongly identified the vendor of a sale deed. The said sale deed was executed and got registered by an impersonator.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, as Advocate, made the identification in good faith, and therefore, no offence was committed by the petitioner. It was pointed out that Harbhajan Singh Brar, who was present at the time of sale deed on behalf of his vendee son, was client of the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner made identification on his asking. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Attar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 1986 (2) RCR (Criminal) 211 and on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao reported as 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 601 .
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. The sale
Crl. Misc. No. M-13564 of 2013 (O&M) 3
deed was registered by the Sub Registrar on the identification of the petitioner. If the petitioner had not made the wrong identification of the vendor, the sale deed would not have been registered. The actual vendor was not present and was being impersonated. The petitioner identified the impersonator as the real vendor resulting in execution and registration of sale deed. In such cases, the prime responsibility for execution and registration of document by impersonator lies on the person identifying the impersonator as the real executant because without such wrong identification, the document cannot be executed and registered. Consequently, at the threshold, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against for any offence. On the contrary, in view of alleged wrong identification of the impersonator as the real vendor made by the petitioner, charge for various offences has been rightly framed against the petitioner.
In addition to the aforesaid, the instant petition is barred by delay and laches also. Revisional judgment is dated 22.05.2012. The instant petition has been filed more than eleven months after the impugned judgment Annexure P-4. The mere fact that formal charge-sheet was framed by the trial Magistrate on 09.04.2013 would not explain the long delay of more than 11 months in filing the instant petition because real cause of action for filing this petition arose on the date when judgment Annexure P-4
Crl. Misc. No. M-13564 of 2013 (O&M)
4
was passed by the revisional court.
The instant petition, under the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is nothing but a second revision petition by the petitioner, which is, however, barred by Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.
Judgments in the cases of Attar Singh (supra) and K.
Narayana Rao (supra) have no applicability to the facts of the instant case because they were given in the context of different factual matrix.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition, which
is accordingly dismissed in limine, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case.
May 01, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition to quash FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when filed more than eleven months after the revisional order is barred by delay and constitutes a second revision under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C
Whether the reliance on previous precedents regarding identification is applicable when the facts involve wrongful identification of an impersonator leading to registration of a sale deed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Attar Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶21
1986 (2) RCR (Criminal) 211
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana RaoReferred¶21
2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 601
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohinderpal Singh
State of Punjab
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
