Nirmal Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Dhan Kaur respondent No. 2 inherited land, on the death of her father, along with her brothers. The land was situated in village Raghuwana. In order to grab that land the petitioners hatched a conspiracy and three fictitious saledeeds were executed in favour of the petitioners by some person who represented himself as an attorney of Dhan Kaur. When Dhan Kaur learnt about the execution of these fictitious sale deeds, she got a case registered at Police Station, City, Sirsa, through her son Karam Singh, respondent No. 3, against the petitioners for offence under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. She also filed civil suits for declaration that she was the owner of the land in question and the saledeeds executed in favour of Nirmal Singh, Mukhtiar Singh etc. were illegal, null and void and inoperative against her rights.

Nirmal Singh and other petitioners invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the first information report No. 377 dated 1.9.1991 Annexure P/1 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

During the pendency of the petition the parties effected compromise and an application was moved for permission to place the compromise deed on record. It was urged that the parties who were close relatives had settled the dispute amicably and Dhan Kaur had withdrawn all the civil suits filed by her against the petitioners. She admitted the validity of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners and also the fact that they were in possession of the land. She also did not want to prosecute the criminal case against the petitioner as that related to the validity of the saledeeds which were admitted to be correct.

Affidavit of Dhan Kaur has been placed on record whereby she affirmed that her son Karam Singh had lodged the impugned first information report in respect of sales which were also subject matter of the civil suits. She had effected compromise with the petitioners in respect of those sales and had withdrawn the suits. She had also admitted that the petitioners were in possession of the suit land. She was, therefore, no longer interested in the prosecution of the petitioners. She, prayed that first information report may be quashed as that will be in the interest of justice.

The various documents placed on record show that the dispute between the parties related to the validity of certain saledeeds and the Civil Court was also seized of that very matter. The civil suits were withdrawn by Dhan Kaur whereby she admitted that the saledeeds were validly executed by her attorney and the vendees were in possession of the suit land. She no longer wants to pursue the criminal case. As the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant does not want to pursue the case registered against the petitioners, so no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings. When the complainant is not to support the prosecution version, there are no chances of the trial ending in conviction. Moreover, when the parties have buried the hatchet and have come to terms it will be in the interest of justice to maintain the harmonious relations between the parties by quashing the impugned first information report.

As a result, I allow this petition and quash the first information report Annexure P/1 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.