Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.A-661-MA of 2013 Date of Decision:-12.02.2014 Sandhura Singh .....Appellant Versus Richpal Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH.
Present:- Mr.B.S.Saroha, Advocate for the appellant.
**** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) Complainant-Sandhura Singh has filed this application under Section 378(3) and 378(4) Cr.P.C.for the grant of Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents No.1 to 5.
In a private complaint, all the five accused were tried for the charges levelled against them under Sections 209, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
Vide judgment dated 11.4.2013 they have been acquitted from all the charges.
It is the case of the complainant that in the month of February 2006, accused No.5 Ram Bhaj who was ASI in Police Station Meyond Kalan, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad, obtained his signatures/thumb impression on some blank papers which were later on used in connivance with other accused by scribing an agreement to sale dated 20.2.2006 in favour of accused No.1-Richpal Saini Reema Singh.
The said agreement was alleged to be witnessed by accused 2014.02.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-661-MA of 2013 -2- No.3 and 4 Bhola Singh and Pardeep Singh respectively.
According to the said agreement, an earnest amount of Rs.20 lac was paid to the complainant and the remaining amount was to be paid on 25.4.2006.
It is undisputed fact that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the appellant after institution of suit for specific performance of the said agreement by accused No.1.
During the pendency of the said complaint, the civil suit filed by accused No.1 for specific performance was dismissed, and the said judgment and decree was upheld by the FiRs.Appellate Court.
The trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused after coming to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
It has not been proved that all the accused (with common intention) had obtained thumb impression of the complainant on a blank paper on which the agreement to sell was alleged to have been fabricated.
The learned trial Court has come to the said conclusion after considering the prosecution as well as the defence evidence led by the respondent.
Harpal Singh Stamp Vendor who appeared as DW2 stated that the stamp papeRs.on which the alleged agreement was written, were purchased from him and an entry in this regard was made in his register.
The Trial Court has found that the stand of the complainant is that his signatures/thumb impressions were obtained by accused No.5 on certain blank papeRs.It was never the case of the complainant that his signatures were obtained by the said accused on stamp papeRs.It is undisputed fact that the alleged Saini Reema 2014.02.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-661-MA of 2013 -3- agreement was written on the stamp papeRs.DW1 Dr.Inderjeet Singh, the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, has also proved that the thumb impression and the specimen thumb impression of Sandhura Singh are affixed by one and same person.
While taking into consideration all these facts and closely analyzing the evidence led by both the parties the trial Court has come to the aforesaid conclusion and passed the order of acquittal of the accused.
Before us, an argument has been raised that accused No.1 has failed to prove his case before the civil Court and his suit for specific performance for the said agreement has been dismissed, therefore, the said finding should be relied upon by the criminal Court and it should have been held that the said agreement was obtained by the accused fraudulently from the complainant and they should be punished for the said offence.
This contention has been negated by the trial Court while relying upon the decision of Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and another Versus State (Delhi Admn.) and another reported in 2009(2) RCR (Criminal)-520 (Surpeme Court).wherein it was held that burden of proof in a criminal case is stronger than the civil Court.
Therefore, the finding recorded in the Civil Court with regard to said agreement cannot be taken care in the criminal proceedings.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, and we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court.
In the civil suit no finding was recorded that the agreement of sale is a fabricated document.
However, the relief of specific performance Saini Reema 2014.02.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-661-MA of 2013 -4- was denied for many other reasons.
In our view in this case the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 11.4.2013.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE1202.2014 ( KULDIP SINGH ) reema JUDGE Saini Reema 2014.02.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh