Nafe Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Nafe Singh filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of first information report No. 8 dated 28.1.1992 registered at police station, Indri, District Karnal, under Sections 420 and 109, IPC. The case was registered on the basis of an application submitted by Kishna respondent No. 2 to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, wherein he alleged that on 6.9.1991 the petitioner took him to his house and served liquor. When he was fully drunk he was taken to Indri on the pretext that some document was to be attested by him as a witness and he further told him that he was not to disclose this fact to any one. This created a doubt in his mind and he narrated the incident to his relations who made enquiries from Tehsil office Indri and obtained copy of any entry made in the register of Mai Chand, deed writer at serial No. 1380 dated 17.9.1991. From that entry he learnt that he was made to thumb mark an agreement to sell 91 kanals 11 marlas of land for Rs. 7,44,000/ out of which he had received Rs. 2,46,600/ as earnest money. In fact he had never thumb marked any such agreement nor received the amount of consideration and taking advantage of his drunken condition and illiteracy the petitioner obtained his thumb mark representing that he was only a witness to the deed. He did not want to sell his land and legal action may be taken against the petitioner.

The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 had agreed to sell 2/3rd share of 137 kanals 6 marlas of land situated in Dabkoli Kalan for Rs. 7,44,000/ and he had actually received earnest money amounting to Rs. 2,46,600/. The deedwriter read out the agreement to Kishna and he thumb marked it after accepting the contents of the agreement as correct. He had agreed to deliver the possession of the land after getting it partitioned and in pursuance of that agreement he moved an application for partition of the land on 13.9.1991. Thereafter he became dishonest and started negotiating for the alienation of the land with other persons as a result of which he had to file a suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain him from transferring the land in favour of other person. The dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature and the validity of the agreement to sell dated 6.9.1991 was the subject matter of civil suits pending between the parties. The judgment of the Civil Court will be binding on the criminal court and continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the return filed by S.H.O. Police Station, Indri, the averments made in the petition were denied. It was also maintained that the alleged agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner was obtained when Kishna was under the influence of liquor and no amount was paid to him by way of earnest money.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the dispute between the parties was regarding the validity of the agreement Annexure P/1. According to the petitioner this agreement was executed by Kishnarespondent regarding the sale of his land which is jointly owned with other cosharers and he received an amount of Rs. 2,46,600/ as earnest money. He agreed to execute this saledeed after getting his share partitioned and after the execution of the agreement he obtained copies of the revenue record and moved an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for partition of land, copy of which was Annexure P/4. The agreement was voluntarily executed while he was in his senses and amount of earnest money was received. Kishna had now asserted that he had not received any amount by way of advance money nor he had executed the agreement and his thumb impression was obtained on the document while he was under the influence of liquor and was told that he was simply attesting the deed as a witness. The learned counsel referred to Annexures P/12 and P/13 to show that civil Court was already seized of the matter. Annexure P/12 is copy of the plaint in the suit filed by Kishna against the petitioner for declaration to the effect that agreement dated 6.9.1991 was illegal, void and ineffective and was liable to be cancelled. Nafe Singh, on the other hand, had filed a suit against Kishna for possession of the land on the basis of that very agreement to sell executed in his favour and copy of that plaint is Annexure P/13. In both these suits the question whether the agreement Annexure P/1 was validly executed is in issue and the judgment of the civil court will be binding on the criminal Court. If the agreement was found to have been executed by Kishan while he was in his senses and he knew the contents of the document when he thumb marked the same, then the very basis for criminal prosecution of the petitioner will be missing and the petitioner will be saved from harassment, otherwise the proceedings will continue. I, therefore, do not find it a fit case where first information report should be quashed but deem it proper to stay further proceedings in the case till the matter regarding validity of the agreement is finally decided by the civil court.

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. The petitioner may, if so advised, move a fresh petition for quashing the first information report No. 8 dated 28.1.1992 after the decision by the Civil Court.