Paramjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition lays challenge to orders dated 4.7.2011 and dated 30.1.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") has been dismissed by the trial court and the order passed by the trial court has been affirmed in revision.

Paramjit Singh petitioner initiated criminal proceedings on the allegations that Smt. Bhagwan Kaur wife of Gurbax Singh was the grand mother of the complainant. Prithipal Singh was the son and Parkash Kaur, Kanwaljeet Kaur and Neelampal Kaur were the daughters of Smt. Bhagwan Kaur. On the death of Bhagwan Kaur, estate devolved upon her class-I heirs on the basis of natural succession. Prithipal Singh, father of the petitioner transferred his share, inherited from Bhagwan Kaur, in favour of Gurkirat Singh and Gurjot Singh, sons of the complainant. Smt. Neelampal Kaur, sister of father of the complainant started suffering from mental illness and was unable to think rationally and look after her interests. Col. Nirbhai Singh Pandher (respondent No. 2), husband of Kanwaljit Kaur poisoned Parkash Kaur (Bua of the petitioner)(respondent No. 5) against the complainant. Parkash Kaur submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana on 19.12.2004 regarding mental illness of Neelampal Kaur. It is further averred that Col. Nirbhai Singh Pandher and other accused in connivance with each other poisoned Deepinder Kaur Bajwa (respondent No. 4) and got executed a general power of attorney from Neelampal Kaur in the name of Deepinder Kaur Bajwa and got it registered vide Wasika No. 3830 dated 29.3.2005 at Ludhiana. On the basis of said power of attorney, sale deed dated 11.10.2006 was executed by Deepinder Kaur Bajwa daughter of Neelampal Kaur in favour of Ishpreet Singh son of Nirbhai Singh Pandher (respondent No. 2).

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial court did not send the complaint for investigation by a police officer in compliance with the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") and dismissed the same without complying with the mandatory requirements of the said provisions. It is further submitted that as Neelampal Kaur is in illegal custody of the accused, the petitioner had no means to get her medically examined and prove on the basis of medical opinion that she is not capacitated to make a rational decision and understand her well being. It is further argued that the impugned order may be set aside and the trial court may be directed to ensure presence of Neelampal Kaur to know her mental state and Neelampal Kaur may also be got medically examined to detect the crime committed by the accused.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

To substantiate the allegations of the complaint, the complainant (petitioner) appeared in the witness box and examined HC Palwinder Singh CW 2, Jeewan Kanta, Record Keeper in the o/o Sub Registrar CW 3 and Jasbir Singh, Registry Clerk, Sub Registrar, Dehlon CW 4 besides tendering documents in evidence.

The learned trial court on appreciation of evidence held that if Neelampal Kaur was residing with the complainant, he could have easily produced medical evidence on record to prove her mental state on the day when general power of attorney was executed by her. There is nothing on record to show that on 29.3.2005, Neelampal Kaur was suffering from mental problem or unfit to take rational decision. It is further observed that apprehension howsoever strong, cannot be sufficient to make a prime facie case against the accused. Jeewan Kanta CW 3, who has proved copy of the original power of attorney executed by Neelampal Kaur in favour of Deepinder Kaur Bajwa has stated that power of attorney as per their record has been duly registered. The findings recorded by the trial court were affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.

Counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no medical evidence on record to substantiate the averments that Neelampal Kaur was suffering psychiotic problem creating any disability in taking rational decision. The plea of the petitioner gets falsified in view of the fact that power of attorney was executed by Neelampal Kaur in favour of her own daughter Deepinder Kaur Bajwa. No doubt, at the stage of issuing process in a private complaint, the court has to examine the case from the point of view of the complainant in order to find out if there is a prima facie case against the accused. However, summoning a person to face criminal proceedings is a serious matter.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker and Another, held that the enquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint, that is, for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complainant so as to justify the issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the person concerned.

The petitioner, in the circumstances of the present case has failed to produce any material on record that Neelampal Kaur was suffering from any mental sickness rendering her unable to make any rational decision. It further appears that as the petitioner has been deprived of any right in the property inherited by Neelampal Kaur from her mother Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, paternal aunt (bua) of the petitioner and Deepinder Kaur Bajwa daughter of Neelampal Kaur on the basis of power of attorney has executed a sale deed in favour of Ishpreet Singh son of Nirbhai Singh Pandher, the petitioner has initiated the criminal proceedings, may be with an intent to put pressure upon the accused to claim property of Neelampal Kaur. I do not find any error much less perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below as would call for intervention in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

This apart, the petitioner has already availed remedy of revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. The second revision is barred u/s 397(3) Cr.P.C. That being so, any intervention by this court in exercise of inherent power is warranted only in exceptional cases or cases of extreme hardship.

Dismissed.