Full Judgment
Crl.Misc.not M- 10714 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.not M- 10714 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:
6. 5.2013 Ranjit Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate with Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
**** SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.100 dated 2.3.2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at police station Sohna District Gurgaon (Annexure P-11) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had purchased the property in question and were in possession of the same since long.
Phoolwati was the original owner of the property in dispute.
She has executed agreement to sell (Annexure P-2) in favour of Rajpal, son of petitioner No.1.
Crl.Misc.not M- 10714 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Receipt with regard to payment of earnest money by Rajpal to Phoolwati is Annexure P-3.
Phoolwati had died in the year 1992.
Bhagmal and Rajbir, sons of Phoolwati, had died in the year 1998 and 1999 respectively.
Chander, son of Phoolwati, was still alive.
A General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of petitioner No.1 by sons of Phoolwati on 12.9.1994 (Annexure P-8).On the basis of the said General Power of Attorney, sale deed had been executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 on 5.10.2005.
In a civil suit filed by heirs of Bhagmal and Rajbir, an application has been made by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction and the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.4.2006 (Annexure P-13).Appeal filed by the heirs of Bhagmal and Rajbir against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
Hence, the petitioners were in possession of the suit property as it had been purchased by Rajpal, son of petitioner No.1.
However, at that time, Phoolwati had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No.1 qua the property and had executed a Will in favour of Rajpal.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the sale deed had been executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 12.9.1994, whereas, by that time, executant Bhagmal and Rajbir had already died.
In the present case, FIR has been registered against the petitioners on the allegation that Bhagmal had died on 14.9.1998, whereas, Rajbir had died on 19.12.1999, yet petitioner No.1 had executed sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 on the basis of Crl.Misc.not M- 10714 of 2009 (O&M) 3 General Power of Attorney executed by Bhagmal and Rajbir on 5.10.2005.
Thus, at the time of execution of the sale deed, the General Power of Attorney executed by Bhagmal and Rajbir could not be said to be in force as the said persons had already died much prior to the execution of the sale deed.
Although reliance has been placed on the un-registered Will (Annexure P-7) executed by Phoolwati in favour of Rajpal on 24.2.1992 and agreement to sell executed by Phoolwati in favour of Rajpal on 24.2.1992 but the fact remains that petitioner No.1 has executed the sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 on the basis of General Power of Attorney executed by Bhagmal and Rajbir, who had already died at the time of execution of sale deed.
Petitioners would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to them during trial.
It would not be just and expedient to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold.
No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 06, 2013 anita