Quashed

Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2021CRLMP/6281/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple Criminal Misc. Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIRs for cheating and forgery. The High Court discharged petitioners Tara Singh, Harjinder Singh, and Surjit Singh, who were already convicted in Punjab for convictions based on identical facts, citing Article 20(2) and Section 300(1) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

FIRs No.347/2014 and 228/2018 quashed qua petitioners Inder Singh @ Tara Singh, Harjinder Singh, and Surjit Singh who were already convicted on same facts.

Tara Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 11)

¶2

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6281/2019

¶5

Tara Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh, Aged About 72 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Village Kotbhara, District Bhatinda-Punjab.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

Raj Kumar S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad, By Caste Agarwal, R/o Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 372/2019

¶13

Fateh Mohammad S/o Noor Mohammad, Aged About 66 Years, By Caste Lilgar Musalman, R/o Bhati Medical, Near Taigore Chauk, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State, Through P.p.

¶17

Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh.

¶18

Crime Assistant, Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh.

¶19

Rajkumar S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad, B/c Agarwal, R/o Nohar District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 470/2019

¶22

Fateh Mohammed S/o Noor Mohammed, Aged About 66 Years, B/c Leelghar Musalman, R/o Tagore Chowk, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶26

Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh.

¶27

Station House Officer, Police Station, Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶28

Rajkumar S/o Dwarkaprasad, B/c Agarwal, R/o Nohar, Tehsil

¶29

(2 of 11)

¶30

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶31

Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶32

----Respondents

¶33

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 480/2019

¶34

Fateh Mohammed S/o Noor Mohammed, Aged About 66 Years, B/c Leelghar Musalman, R/o Tagore Chowk, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶35

----Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

State, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶38

Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh.

¶39

Station House Officer, Police Station, Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶40

Rajkumar S/o Dwarkaprasad, B/c Agarwal, R/o Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶41

----Respondents

¶42

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5919/2019

¶43

Raj Kumar S/o Dawarka Prasad, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o 65 Ward No. 12, Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh.

¶44

----Petitioner

¶45

Versus

¶46

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶47

----Respondent

¶48

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6058/2019

¶49

Fateh Mohammed S/o Shri Noor Mohammed, Aged About 66 Years, By Caste Musalman, R/o Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶50

----Petitioner

¶51

Versus

¶52

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶53

Raj Kumar S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad, By Caste Agarwal, R/o Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶54

----Respondents

¶55

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6282/2019

¶56

Sarjeet Singh S/o Shri Kala Singh, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Rambag, Gali Number 1, Sidhu Colony, H.no. 11/24, Near Gurudwara, Bhatinda, Punjab.

¶57

(3 of 11)

¶58

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶59

Harjinder Singh S/o Shri Guljar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Village Kotbhara, Post Kotfatta, Tehsil Maur, District Bhatinda, (Punjab).

¶60

Jaswant Singh S/o Narsingh, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Buraj Dhilwa, District Mansa (Punjab).

¶61

----Petitioners

¶62

Versus

¶63

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶64

Raj Kumar S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad, By Caste Agarwal, R/o Nohar Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶65

----Respondents

¶66

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Moti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr Mukhtiyar Khan, Public Prosecutor Mr Kishan Lal Bansal, Mr Sanjay Mathur, Mr Rajendra Kumar Meena RPS, Addl. S.P. Nohar

¶67

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶68

Order

¶69

18/01/2021

¶70

The petitioners have preferred these Criminal Misc. Petitions under sec.482 CrPC for quashing FIR No.347/2014 as also the FIR No.228/2018 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 195A, 120B IPC, registered at Police Station- Nohar District Hanumangarh. Both the FIR were lodged by complainant Raj Kumar (respondent No.2).

¶71

The counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court through the record, which indicates that an agriculture land situated in village 1-NHRA, Patwar Circle Nohar, Tehsil Nohar of District Hanumangarh, comprised in Khasras Nos.309/438, 310/438, 309/439 & 79/5 total area 6.6033 Hectares is joint property of

¶72

(4 of 11)

¶73

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶74

several persons, out of whom present dispute pertains to share of Tara Singh s/o Nand Singh.

¶75

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier an FIR was lodged against the present petitioners {Inder Singh @ Tara Singh s/o Nand Singh, Surjit Singh s/o Kala Singh, Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Singh s/o Gulzar Singh} at Police Station Maur, District Bhatinda, bearing FIR No.96/2014 on 17.06.2014, for offences under secs.420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

¶76

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in that FIR No.96/2014, the complainant Raj Kumar who is complainant in the present case too, stated that an unknown person named Tara Singh prepared fake Ration Card and Aadhar Card with the help of Harjinder Singh Sarpanch, with the intention of grabbing land of Tara Singh s/o Nand Singh who is resident of village 2-PGM, Panchayat Samiti Anoopgarh in District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan). It was further alleged that Tara Singh @ Inder Singh who is present petitioner, represented himself as Tara Singh s/o Anand Singh @ Anant Singh and got prepared a forged Identity Card and cheated the public and the Government as well. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation is that the applications were filed before the Tehsildar Nohar on the basis of forged documents.

¶77

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the trial arising out of FIR No.96/2014 dated 17.06.2014, the petitioners have been convicted by the competent court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talwandi Sabo/UID No.PB-0426 in File No.13 dated 22.03.2016, decided on 18.10.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that after undergoing the trial, the petitioners were convicted for offence under secs.420, 467, 468,

¶78

(5 of 11)

¶79

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶80

471 IPC. The concluding paragraph of the convicting judgment

¶81

dated 18.10.2019, which is paragraph 11, reads as follows:

¶82

“11. Therefore, in view of the above facts and discussion, it is established that accused Inder Singh @ Tara Singh in connivance with accused Surjit Singh cheated general public as well as Government employee by dishonestly inducing them by preparing fake Ration Card and Adhar Card and the name of Tara Singh son of Nand Singh. Further all the accused in connivance with each other prepared forged documents i.e. Ration Card and Adhar Card in the name of Tara Singh for the purpose of cheating general public and Government. The accused used the said Adhar Card and Ration Card as genuine documents, which they knew or have reason to believe at the time of when they used it to be forged documents and held guilty to the offence U/S 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Accused taken into custody. Let convict be heard on quantum of sentence.”

¶83

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the allegations were pertaining to usage of such documents at Panchayat Samiti, Anoopgarh in District Sri Ganganagar before Government official i.e. Tehsildar, Nohar; therefore, another FIR on the same allegations can not be pursued as it would amount to defeating the Constitutional as well as other rights of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolla Veera

¶84

Raghav Rao Vs Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Another

¶85

reported in 2011 CrLR (SC) 260, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶86

“5. It may be noticed that there is a difference between the language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.. Article 20(2) states:

¶87

“no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”

¶88

(6 of 11)

¶89

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶90

On the other hand, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. States:

¶91

“300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same office__(1)A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2)thereof.”

¶92

Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once', Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one canbe tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts.

¶93

In the present case, although the offences are different but the facts are the same. Hence, Section 300(1)of Cr.P.C. applies. Consequently, the prosecution under Section 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

¶94

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Article 20 subArticle (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 sub-sec.(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are already quoted in the aforementioned judgment.

¶95

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Constitutional guarantee of a person not having to face double jeopardy in criminal law is an established procedure and infringement of the same shall not only amount to violation of fundamental rights but also the procedure laid down in Section 300(1) CrPC.

¶96

The learned counsel for petitioners further submits that he has earlier brought a Criminal Misc. Petition No.248/2014 (Tara

¶97

(7 of 11)

¶98

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶99

Singh Vs State), which was decided on 08.08.2016 as he could not pursue the same because the petitioner Tara Singh @ Inder Singh was in custody at that time and proper instructions could not be received from petitioner and as such, the learned counsel was left with no other option but to plead no instructions, for which an adverse view was taken by this Court. The petitioner Tara Singh @ Inder Singh was arrested by Police at Elnabad, District Sirsa (Haryana) where remained at District Jail Sirsa for more than one & half year, till October 2018.

¶100

Learned counsel for the petitioners further explains that the dispute regarding the land in question is pending before competent court and the ownership of the land could be established only after proper adjudication of the same.

¶101

Learned counsel for respondent Mr Sanjay Mathur has vehemently opposed the petitions on the ground that the complainant Raj Kumar, who is father-in-law of Chetna Kumari, who purchased the same disputed land in question from Tara Singh s/o Nand Singh and thus, he being related to the bona fide purchaser, was actual person who is aggrieved out of these circumstances and since the documents in question were prepared in Punjab but used in Rajasthan at Nohar, therefore, no question of double jeopardy arises and in fact, the cause of action is different because the cause of action at Punjab was to create such document whereas in Nohar (Rajasthan) they have used such forged documents with forged signatures on affidavit/application.

¶102

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the application/affidavit put before the Tehsildar, Nohar are actual grievance of the present complainant and these have to be

¶103

(8 of 11)

¶104

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶105

separately investigated and no benefit of double jeopardy can be given to the petitioners in this case.

¶106

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that a person who is impostor, who creates a fake identity with intention to grab land and causing loss to other person, has to be taken very seriously by law and the investigation and trial should be where the cause of action arises.

¶107

Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the criminal jurisprudence is territorial and thus, as per territorial jurisdiction, competent court to trial of present matter would be the particular court in Rajasthan, once the investigation is completed and no other proceedings can hamper such trial in the State of Rajasthan.

¶108

The Investigating Officer present in person along with learned Public Prosecutor submitted that they have investigated in the present FIRs and found prima facie that the offences are made out, even after representation was made because the documents are forged and the application filed before the Teshildar, Nohar is absolutely unlawful. However, the Investigating Officer along with learned Public Prosecutor could not distinguish the allegations which were already made by the same complainant Raj Kumar before Punjab Police, in earlier FIR No.96/2014 lodged at Police Station Mour, District Bhatinda. The Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer candidly submitted that the Ration Card and Adhar Card are fake documents and same Tara Singh @ Inder Singh is being investigated against in the present FIR No.347/2014 and the FIR No.228/2018 but have not been able to point out as to how the allegations were different from earlier FIR No.96/2014 registered at PS Mour, District Bhatinda (Punjab).

¶109

(9 of 11)

¶110

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶111

Same submissions have been repeated by other counsel for respective petitioners in Criminal Misc. Petitions No.5919/2019 (Rajkumar Vs State), No.6058/2019 (Fateh Mohammed Vs State), No.6282/2019 (Surjeet Singh Vs State) and Criminal Writ Petitions No.372/2019 (Fateh Mohammed Vs State), No.470/2019 (Fateh Mohammed Vs State), No.480/2019 (Fateh Mohammed Vs State and opposed by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶112

This Court notes that the prayer of the petitioners is limited to protection from double jeopardy as per fundamental rights enshrined under Article 20 sub-Article (2) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶113

This Court after careful perusal of the record as well as trial court judgment in FIR No.96/2014 lodged at PS Maur, District Bhatinda (Punjab) as well as FIR No.347/2014 and the FIR No.228/2018, lodged by the same complainant, which are in challenge in the present petitions, find that there is no distinguishing feature between the nature of charges and the facts which are involved in both the complaints.

¶114

This Court does not wish to go into merits of the cases between the parties because it is complicated issue of property rights and the same are being adjudicated by competent courts. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR No.96/2014 lodged at PS Maur, District Bhatinda (Punjab) was on the same pedestal as that of present FIRs under challenge before this Court, which are No.347/2014 and the FIR No.228/2018 registered at PS Nohar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶115

This Court finds that in case the petitioners, who have already been convicted for the same offence by a competent court i.e. the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talwandi Sabo/UID

¶116

(10 of 11)

¶117

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶118

No.PB-0426 by a detailed judgment on on 18.10.2019, the conclusion wherein has already been reproduced in this order herein before, are allowed by respondents in FIRs No.347/2014 and 228/2018 to be investigated on the same issue, then it would definitely jeopardize valuable legal rights of petitioners. This Court relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs Gorantla Venkateswara Rao (supra).

¶119

State of Rajasthan should not proceed in the FIRs No.347/2014 and 228/2018 against the accused-petitioners who have already been convicted by a competent court, on the same facts and allegations, vide judgment dated 18.10.2019, wherein accused convicted were Inder Singh @ Tara Singh, Surjit Singh and Harjinder Singh. This order would not operate for the accused-petitioners for whom no conviction has been made previously.

¶120

All the petitions are disposed of with a direction that the prosecution shall be free to carryout investigation against any other person other than the petitions already convicted vide judgment dated 18.10.2019 (supra) i.e. Inder Singh @ Tara Singh, Surjit Singh and Harjinder Singh. Investigation against these persons shall not be carried out contrary to the protection granted by the Constitution of India under Article 20 sub-Article (2) and Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶121

The FIR No.347/2014 as also the FIR No.228/2018 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 195A, 120B IPC, registered at Police Station- Nohar District Hanumangarh are, therefore, quashed and set aside, qua petitioners- Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Singh s/o Gulzar Singh,

¶122

(11 of 11)

¶123

[CRLMP-6281/2019]

¶124

Surjit Singh s/o Kala Singh and Inder Singh @ Tara Singh s/o Nand Singh; who had earlier been convicted under FIR No.96/17.06.2014 (Police Station Maur, District-Bhatinda) by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talwandi Sabo UID No.PB-0426 by order dated 18.10.2019.

¶125

It is needless to say that the investigation against petitioner Fateh Mohammed in the case may be made after proper application of mind and this order shall not be to the prejudice of any of the parties to the investigation. The result of the investigation in the matter shall be filed expeditiously before the competent court.

¶126

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶127

120-126 MMA/-

Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Vs Amit Ojha

Moda Ram Vs State

Jasveer Singh @ Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Talreja Vs State

Amrit Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Indra Raj Vs State of Rajasthan