AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the FIR No.0225 dated 09.11.2017 under Sections 420/120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Chand Rani daughter of Haripal and reads as under:-
To SP Sahib Phagwara. Sub. Application for registering case of cheating against Banso wife of Joginder Singh son of Maha Nand and Tejpal Singh son of Joginder Singh, son of Maha Nand, residents of Gali No. 2, Satnampura, Phagwara, District Kapurthala. M. No. 99149-44279. Sir it is prayed that one land measuring 31 kanal 15 Marlas was purchased from Banso wife of Joginder Singh through Harnek Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Hardaspur in Rs.39,70,000/-. This land deal was done through Harnek Singh which was done in my presence on 18th March, 2015. The cost of land was settled as Rs.39,70,000/-, in which Banso has said that writings regarding sale of land would be done after sometime and said to me that Rs.9,90,000/- is to be given to Balwinder Singh which would be considered as earnest money for this land. I transferred through my bank a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- to Balwinder Singh as per the words of Banso. I will take from him whenever I want. I gave Rs.12,00,000/- on 01.10.2015. Harnek Singh transferred on asking of Banso through Bank in the name of her husband on 16.10.2015, thereafter, on dated 29.10.2015, then on asking of Banso a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was transferred in the name of Joginder Singh through Bank and on 05.11.2015 a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was got transferred in the name of Banso. In this manner she received Rs.21,90,000/- and when I started asking Banso to get the sale deed in my name then she said that she will be liable for tax for selling land, therefore, gave me rest of the amount Rs. 17,80,000/- in cash. I will give in your favour statement of selling the land and irrevocable and non-cancellable power of attorney, because I have faith on her, I gave Banso a sum of Rs. 17,80,000/- on 11.12.2015. Banso gave me possession of the land and have written in the agreement to sell that she had received whole of the amount and had given the possession. An irrevocable General Power of Attorney was given (Photocopies of agreement to sell dated 11.12.2015 and Power of attorney dated 11.12.2015 are enclosed). That on dated 14.7.2017 Harnek Singh told me that Banso had entered into an agreement to sell of the above said land with her son Tejpal Singh. That Banso, Tejpal Singh and Joginder Singh conspired with each other against me. Firstly, entered into an agreement to sell with me, then received from time to time Rs.39,70,000/- from me,. their intention from the very beginning was to usurp my money by cheating. Now after killing my all rights, the ownership right of the above land was given under a conspiracy by Banso to her son Tejpal Singh and in this manner they have caused big financial loss to me, therefore, it is prayed that by registering a case against above persons, strict punishment be given and I may be given justice. Yours slave. Sd/- Chand Rani.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners who are old and infirm NRIs residing in Denmark, have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant and one Harnek Singh. The agreement to sell and the irrevocable Power of Attorney both dated 11.12.2015 have been forged and fabricated and the petitioners have been made to execute the same surreptitiously. In fact, when they became aware of the evil intentions of the complainant and Harnek Singh, the Power of Attorney was cancelled on 14.07.2017 and the property was sold to their son-Tejpal Singh on the same date to save it from the hands of the complainant party. The petitioner No.1 has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant and Harnek Singh. On the other hand, the complainant too has filed a civil suit for specific performance. Therefore, primarily, the dispute is of a civil nature. Hence, the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed.
The learned counsels for the respondents No.1 to 4/State and the respondent No.5-complainant, on the other hand, contend that FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered after a thorough enquiry conducted by the Economic Offences Wing, Phagwara. While the investigation was in progress, further proceedings were ordered to be stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2027 i.e. barely a month after the registration of the FIR. Therefore, the present petition for quashing of the FIR (Annexure P-1) is premature, as the challan is yet to be filed and a bare perusal of the FIR reveals the commission of offences. They contend that the grounds raised in the present petition would amount to the defence of the petitioners and raising of disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in summary proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mere pendency of civil suits by itself would not be sufficient to quash the FIR. It is a case where prima facie, the offence stands established and the investigation must be allowed to continue. In case, it is found that no offence is made out, the investigating agency is at liberty to file a cancellation report. They, therefore, contend that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, the FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on 01.11.2015 after an enquiry conducted by the Economic Offences Wing, Phagwara. Without even waiting for the out come of the investigation, proceedings have been ordered to be stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2017. Effectively, no investigation has taken place. A bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the petitioners have cheated the complainant-respondent No.5 of an amount of Rs.39,70,000/- on the pretext of selling their land and an agreement to sell and an irrevocable Power of Attorney were executed which have been cancelled. The defence of the petitioners that they were misled into executing the said documents cannot be adjudicated upon in summary proceedings but would be a matter of Trial. Further, mere pendency of civil suits by itself are not sufficient to quash the FIR (Annexure P-1) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.
The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.