Pal Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.

Pal Singh, Bhajan Singh and Udham Singh have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report No. 331 dated August 5, 1980, got registered by the Manager of the Union Bank of India, Bilga at Police Station Nurmahal.

The substance of the impugned First Information Report is that one Charan Singh had a Savings. Bank Account with the Union Bank of India, Bilga. Chanan Singh, an alleged accused in the said First Information Report, got a sum of Rs. 65000/ transferred from that account to his own Savings Bank account on the basis of a letter purported to be signed by Charan Singh who was residing outside India. Charan Singh paid a visit to India and came to the Bank on May 10, 1980 and he then came to know about the said transfer of money from his account to that of Chanan Singh. He vehemently denied having issued any letter of authority to Chanan Singh and denied his signatures on the letter which had been presented by Chanan Singh to the Bank on the basis of which the aforesaid amount was transferred from one account to the other. It was further alleged that when these facts were brought to the notice of said Chanan Singh he promised to deposit the money in the account of Charan Singh but he failed to do so despite repeated reminders. The Bank Manager on these allegations requested Police Station Nurmahal to register the case against Chanan Singh.

The contents of the First Information Report enumerated above manifestly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence of which the Police is entitled to investigate under section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, amply clear that there is no ground to quash this Report.

The grievance of the petitioners is that they have nothing to do with the facts mentioned in the impugned First Information Report. They had attested a Will which was executed by aforesaid Charan Singh in favour of Chanan Singh. It is said that although the execution of the Will has, nothing to do with the matter relating to the impugned First Information Report but the Police have started investigation regarding the genuineness of the Will in the, investigation of the impugned First Information Report.

The Punjab State in its reply has stated that during the investigation of the impugned First Information Report it was found that Chanan Singh who had defrauded Charan Singh of Rs; 65000/ as detailed in the First Information Report had also prepared a forged Will purporting to have been executed in his favour by Charan Singh. It is, therefore, said that the investigation regarding the forged Will has been taken tip along with the investigation of the impugned First Information Report.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the State has conceded that the offence regarding the forged will has no connection with the offence reported in the impugned First Information Report. Both the offences are distinct and separate in their perpetration. The learned State counsel has, therefore, undertaken that the investigation regarding the forged Will be separated and this matter will not be investigated in the investigation of the impugned First Information Report. In this situation the respondentPunjab State is directed not to investigate the matter regarding the forged Will in the investigation of the impugned First Information Report No. 331 dated August 5, 1980. If and when a separate investigation is started by the Police regarding the will it will be open to the petitioners to challenge the same under an appropriate provision of law and in an appropriate forum.

Since the petitioners have no connection with the impugned First Information Report, they are not competent to ask for the quashing of this report. They have failed to make out any case for the quashing of this Report. Thus, with the aforesaid direction to the Punjab State with respect to the alleged. forged Will which have been attested by the petitioners as witnesses the instant petition for quashing the impugned First Information Report is dismissed.