Judgment:
Criminal Misc.
not M-21827 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc.
not M-21827 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:
24. 5.2013 Dinesh Kumar and others ......Petitioners Versus Panna Lal and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint not RT 8.of 1.3.2007/ 2009 titled as Panna Lal versus Sanjay Jain and others (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 17.5.2005 (Annexure P-2) .
Case of the complainant, in brief, as per the complaint (Annexure P-1) is that Ram Chander had executed General Power of Attorney in his favour and on the basis of the same, he was filing the Criminal Misc.
not M-21827 of 2010 (O&M) 2 complaint with regard to property owned by Ram Chander.
It was alleged in the complaint that the property in dispute was ancestral property of Ram Chander and a factory has been constructed thereon in the year 1964.
All the accused, in connivance with each other, sold the property belonging to Ram Chander.
Accused Sanjay Jain executed different sale deeds in favour of the other accused from time to time with regard to the property in question owned by Ram Chander.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in fact, with regard to the property in question civil suit was filed by Ram Chander claiming declaration that he was owner in possession of the property in question.
However, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment/ decree dated 8.4.2006.
Appeal filed by Ram Chander through his legal representative Panna Lal (complainant) was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment/ decree dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P-3).Regular Second Appeal filed before this Court by the complainant bearing No.3232 of 2009 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment/ decree dated 14.1.2013.
Since the complainant had lost the case in the civil proceedings, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners were nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the petition but has failed to controvert the factual aspect with regard to dismissal of the civil suit filed by Ram Chander claiming relief of declaration with regard to ownership of the property in question.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the Criminal Misc.
not M-21827 of 2010 (O&M) 3 opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
In the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the fiRs.information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the fiRs.information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the Criminal Misc.
not M-21827 of 2010 (O&M) 4 FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.”
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power Criminal Misc.
not M-21827 of 2010 (O&M) 5 of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
Admittedly, in the present case, Ram Chander, who was alleged to be the owner of the property in question, had filed civil suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit property against Sanjay Jain and otheRs.The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment/ decree dated 8.4.2006.
Appeal filed by Ram Chander through his legal representative Panna Lal, complainant, was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment/ decree dated 22.12.2008 .
A perusal of judgment dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) reveals that it was held in the civil proceedings that plaintiff had miserably failed to prove that he was owner in possession of the property in dispute.
Annexure P-6 is the copy of the judgment passed in Regular Second Appeal No.3232 of 2009 decided on 14.1.2013.
The said appeal was dismissed by this Court.
Thus, finding of the courts below that Ram Chander had failed to establish that he was owner in possession of the suit property was upheld by this Court .
Since Ram Chander had failed to establish his ownership and possession qua the property in question in civil proceedings, continuation of Criminal Misc.
not M-21827 of 2010 (O&M) 6 criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the allegation that Sanjay Jain had no right to sell the property to the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Even otherwise, petitioners were bonafide purchasers for consideration/ witnesses of the sale deed executed by Sanjay Jain.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Criminal complaint not RT 8.of 1.3.2007/ 2009 titled as Panna Lal versus Sanjay Jain and others (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 17.5.2005 (Annexure P- 2) are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 24, 2013 anita