Rakesh alias Vijesh Grover and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 111 dated 7.11.2008 under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC registered at Police Station ''D'' Division, Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Notice of motion was issued in this case on 12.3.2010.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC as the petitioners never forged the signatures of the complainants. The present FIR has been registered on the basis of misrepresentation and distortion of facts after a period of 8 years from execution of sale deed, which is an attempt to harass the petitioners. Ms. Shilpa Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complainants have not mentioned anything with regard to arbitration award dated 16.3.2000, in pursuance of which the property in dispute had already fallen to the share of Rakesh alias Vijesh Grover. The complainants have made a false statement that each of the siblings and their widow mother became entitled to 1/5th share in the property after the death of his father and she tried to partition the ancestral property whereas the above-said property had already been sold. As per arbitration award dated 16.3.2000, the estate of deceased Ramesh Kumar Grover was divided amongst the wife and the two sons, all the legal heirs of Ramesh Kumar Grover agreed to the terms and conditions of the arbitration award and happily accepted the same. No application for setting aside the said award was ever made u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within the period of three months. As per arbitration award, Rakesh alias Vijesh was the exclusive owner of the disputed property and he could have sold the same without acquiring the signatures of sisters as there was no necessity to put forged signatures of his sisters. Ms. Shilpa Singh further submits that the present FIR is a result of fabricated mechanism devised by the sisters with malicious intent in order to square terms with the brother in view of serious allegations levelled against them and their family members in the bank locker dispute. Moreover, the property in dispute has been sold and re-sold about 4-5 times after sale deed dated 30.3.2000 and third party rights have been created. The FIR was registered on 7.11.2008 i.e. after a delay of more than 8 years just to implicate the petitioners in a false case. Mother of petitioner No. 1 Rekha alias Parvati Grover died on 13.11.2007 and she had taken one locker No. 25-C in State Bank of India''s Branch at Dhab Vasti Ram, Amritsar on 11.12.1999 and she nominated her elder daughter Seema Kundra as nominee. On 18.10.2003, Smt. Rekha alias Parvati Grover got the nomination in favour of Seema Kundra cancelled and applied to the bank for addition of the names of petitioner No. 1 Rakesh alias Vijesh Grover and petitioner No. 2 Arti Grover as co-owners and the keys of the said locker were always in possession of Smt. Rekha alias Parvati Grover who used to stay with her youngest son Rakesh (petitioner No. 1) and his wife. After death of mother, Ritu Chawla, Seema Kundra, Rakesh Kundra, Rajesh Grover and Mohinder Pal Kundra committed theft of the keys of the locker and on depositing the amount of Rs. 2500/- as locker breaking charges by petitioner No. 1, the alleged locker was found empty and nothing was found therein. On inquiry with the bank officials, nothing was found and a complaint was filed as per certificates issued by the bank on 2.2.2008. Seema Kundra was found to have operated the lockers at 3.10 p.m. on 21.11.2007. Seema Kundra was wrongly allowed to operate the locker as neither she was the owner nor nominee and moreover no death certificate was demanded by the bank authorities. Seema Kundra with mala fide intention and to misappropriate the jewellery of her mother and sisters-in-law colluded with Ritu Chawla, Rakesh Kundra, Mohinder Pal Kundra, Rajesh Grover and certain other officials of the bank, stole jewellery on 21.11.2007. Moreover, Mohinder Pal Kundra, father-in-law of Seema Kundra was once Manager in the same Bank and having influence in the bank, helped Seema Kundra in her plan of unlocking the locker. Another son of Mohinder Pal Kundra and brother-in-law of Seema Kundra had worked in SBI being President of Bank Employees Union. All these documents were obtained under the RTI. For the alleged acts, the petitioners approached the police but no FIR was registered

Lastly, Ms. Shilpa Singh has argued that the present FIR is totally misuse of the process of law just to falsely implicate the petitioners and prayed for quashing of the said FIR.

Written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents, which are placed on record.

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 has opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners hatched a conspiracy and sold the share of the answering respondents out of joint property in favour of Ravinder Singh and his wife Mohanjit Kaur by affixing old photographs of Seema Kundra and Ritu Chawla forging the signatures of answering respondents and even without marking their presence in the office of Sub-Registrar, Amritsar. It has also been mentioned by the respondents that fact with regard to selling of joint property came to the knowledge of the respondents only after the death of their mother and inquiry was made from the office of Sub-Registrar, Amritsar and only on 12th march, 2008, certificate was issued that other pages of the said sale deed were not available on record. This fact was also inquired by senior police officials and petitioner No. 1. was found guilty. Later on, the complaint was sent to DIG and inquiry was conducted by DSP, City-II and by S.P and the petitioners were found guilty and the said FIR was registered. It is also a case of the respondents that even the anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the High Court and the petitioners are still absconding from the investigation and proceedings for declaring them as proclaimed offenders have already been initiated vide order dated 16.4.2010.

Lastly, the learned Counsel for respondents submitted that petitioners have filed the present petition without disclosing the true facts and by concealing certain material facts and the present petition is liable to be dismissed only on this ground. Further they have already been declared proclaimed offenders. The disputed question of facts are involved in the present case which requires to be proved by way of leading evidence and the FIR cannot be quashed. Specific allegations of fraud and cheating are there against the petitioners in the said FIR and distortion of facts by the petitioners cannot be made a ground to grant them any relief.

I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and written statements filed on behalf of the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR mainly on the ground that there was arbitration award and a compromise was effected between the parties and as per said compromise, only the widow of deceased Ramesh Grover and his two sons were given share in the estate of deceased. Both sisters namely Ritu Chawla and Seema Kundra agreed not to take any share. The real dispute between the parties arose after the death of mother and all the legal heirs were given 1/5th share of the property. Petitioners have also relied the arbitration award by stating that there was no need to forge the signatures of Ritu Chawla and Seema Kundra as they voluntarily agreed not to have their share in the property and question of forging signatures does not arise. Meanwhile there was a dispute with regard to opening of the locker between the parties which is also pending. The petitioners also approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar by way of complaint u/s 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was dismissed being disputed question of facts and the appeal filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab was also dismissed on 18.12.2008. Even the revision petition filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi was dismissed on 29.4.2009 on the ground that the question of facts and law are involved in the case which cannot be raised in the consumer forms under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Since disputed question of facts and law have been raised by the petitioners which cannot be decided by this Court and when disputed question of facts are there, FIR cannot be quashed. The allegations of fraud, cheating, misrepresentation and distortion of facts have been alleged by the complainants against the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners have also been declared proclaimed offenders and have also concealed the material facts in the petition and the present petition can be dismissed only on this ground alone.

Since the disputed question of facts are involved in the case which requires to be proved by way of leading evidence and that can be decided by the trial Court on the basis of evidence produced by both the parties.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, no ground for quashing of FIR is made out. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.