Paramjit Kaur And ORS v. State Of Punjab & Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-21149 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: July 10, 2018 Paramjit Kaur and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, D.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for respondent No.2.
SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No.22 dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-1), registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Instant FIR was registered on the complaint by Kuldip Singh, respondent No.2, wherein he has stated that plot No.5 measuring 125 square yards situated in village Threekay, Abadi Sunder Nagar, Tehsil and District Ludhiana was owned by one Karnail Singh son of Surinder Singh, who sold the same vide sale deed dated 22.06.1988 to petitioner No.1 Paramjit Kaur. She sold this plot to her real brother Balwinder Singh vide sale deed dated
-224.01.1992 and Balwinder Singh sold this plot to complainant and his family members namely Surinder Kaur, Gurmeet Singh and Baljinder Singh vide sale deed dated 23.07.2010 and mutation No.18839 of the said plot was entered and sanctioned in the name of complainant and his family members. When the complainant and his family members were raising construction over the plot, petitioner No.1 Paramjit Kaur started making interference in their possession, as a result of which, they have to file a civil suit for permanent injunction, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.2011 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. The complainant received summons in a civil suit titled Supinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others filed by petitioner No.
2, wherein he has alleged that disputed plot was transferred to him by his mother by way of transfer deed dated 12.06.2009. He alleged the sale deed dated 24.01.1992 executed by his mother in favour of Balwinder Singh as forged document. Petitioner No.1 had in fact taken the benefit of entry in revenue record, where the property despite selling the same to Balwinder Singh, was recorded in her name. Taking advantage of this entry, she fabricated transfer deed dated 12.06.2009. She was aware of the sale of this plot to her brother Balwinder Singh and had alleged in her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2002 that she did not own any immovable property. The above transfer deed was executed to grab the property of the complainant by way of fraud and forgery.
The police registered the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC and after investigation, presented the challan against the petitioners. The facts which emerge on perusal of the complaint are
-3enumerated as follows:- (i) Plot in question was owned by Karnail Singh, who sold the same to Paramjit Kaur, petitioner No.1 vide sale deed dated 22.06.1988. (ii) Paramjit Kaur sold this plot to her brother Balwinder Singh vide sale deed dated 24.01.1992.
(iii) Paramjit Kaur transferred the plot in question vide transfer deed dated 12.06.2009 to her son Supinder Singh, petitioner No.2. (iv) Complainant Kuldip Singh and his family members purchased the plot in question from Balwinder Singh vide sale deed dated 23.07.2010. (v) Kuldip Singh and others filed civil suit against Paramjit Kaur to restrain her from interfering in their possession in the plot in question, which was decreed.
At the very outset, this fact has been conceded by learned counsel for the complainant that offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is not made out from perusal of the complaint. The question, which arise for consideration is, as to whether offence under Section 420 IPC is made out, even if, all the allegations as mentioned in the complaint are taken on its face value.
Section 415 IPC defines cheating as follows:- "415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
-4Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." Following ingredients are required to make out the offence of cheating:- (i) Deception of a person;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person; (ii) delivery of any property to any person.
Section 420 IPC prescribes punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, which reads as follows:- "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." The basic ingredient to make out offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is deception of any person. In this case, complainant had no dealing with the petitioners. The allegation in the FIR that transfer deed dated 12.06.
2009 was executed by petitioner No.1 in connivance with petitioner No.2 under a criminal conspiracy to grab the property of complainant by way of fraud and forgery, have no basis as the transfer deed was executed much prior to the execution of sale deed by Balwinder Singh on 23.07.2010 in favour of complainant and his family members. Execution of release deed by petitioner No.1, in no manner, cheats the complainant or vendee of sale deed dated 23.07.
-5manner, effect their right. The vendees of this sale deed have purchased the property from rightful owner and as alleged by learned counsel for respondent No.2, right and title of vendees of sale deed dated 23.07.2010, has been recognized by the civil Court. These documents, as such, cannot be taken as executed to grab the property of the complainant. The ingredients to attract the offence under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC are not made out from the allegations as levelled by the complainant. It appears that respondent No.2 has tried to settle his civil dispute by filing the complaint before the police and the Investigating Officer without looking into the aspect as to whether the complainant has been cheated, has presented the challan in Court, which is sheer misuse of the process of Court.
In view of my above discussion, I have no other option except to allow the petition and quash impugned FIR No.22 dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-1), registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Ordered accordingly.
July 10, 2018 (SURINDER GUPTA) Sachin M.
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No