Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, JODHPUR BENCH
Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.
Govind Ram and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2515 of 2014
Decided On : 02-12-2016
For the Appellants : A.K. Singh
For the Respondents: V.S. Rajpurohit
The execution of a power of attorney by a deceased person is prima facie sufficient to show involvement in the commission of an offence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - FIR QUASHING - FORGERY - POWER OF ATTORNEY - SALE DEED - COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - INHERENT JURISDICTION - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - CIVIL DISPUTE - PENDENCY OF CIVIL SUIT - INVESTIGATION - THIRD PARTY RIGHTS - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS - ENDS OF JUSTICE: 1. FIR cannot be quashed merely because it is based on frivolous or absurd allegations. The allegations must be inherently improbable and not satisfy the test of prudency for proceeding against the accused. 2. Execution of a power of attorney by a deceased person is prima facie sufficient to show involvement of the alleged power of attorney in the commission of an offence. 3. Mere pendency of a civil suit for cancellation of a sale deed does not warrant quashing of an FIR alleging forgery and use of forged documents, as the dispute may have a criminal texture. 4. Delay in lodging an FIR is a relative term depending on the facts of each case and is not a ground for quashing the FIR unless it is inordinate and unexplained. 5. Investigation is the stage of crime detection and courts should not interfere with it unless there is a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process.
Fact of the Case:
Accused-petitioners challenged an FIR alleging forgery of a power of attorney, execution of a sale deed on the basis of the forged power of attorney, and subsequent conversion of the land by the Urban Improvement Trust. They argued that the FIR was based on frivolous allegations, did not disclose a cognizable offence, and was a civil dispute. They also contended that the delay in lodging the FIR and the pendency of a civil suit warranted quashing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR, if proved, would constitute cognizable offences. It held that the execution of a power of attorney by a deceased person was prima facie sufficient to show involvement in the commission of an offence. The court also held that the pendency of a civil suit did not warrant quashing the FIR, as the dispute may have a criminal texture. The court further held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not inordinate or unexplained and that investigation was the stage of crime detection and courts should not interfere with it unless there was a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR was based on frivolous or absurd allegations and did not satisfy the test of prudency for proceeding against the accused. 2. Whether the execution of a power of attorney by a deceased person was prima facie sufficient to show involvement in the commission of an offence. 3. Whether the pendency of a civil suit for cancellation of a sale deed warranted quashing of an FIR alleging forgery and use of forged documents. 4. Whether the delay in lodging an FIR was a ground for quashing the FIR. 5. Whether investigation is the stage of crime detection and courts should not interfere with it unless there is a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations in the FIR, if proved, would constitute cognizable offences. It held that the execution of a power of attorney by a deceased person was prima facie sufficient to show involvement in the commission of an offence. The court also held that the pendency of a civil suit did not warrant quashing the FIR, as the dispute may have a criminal texture. The court further held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not inordinate or unexplained and that investigation was the stage of crime detection and courts should not interfere with it unless there was a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. 2. The court relied on the following precedents: • Mohd. Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 • Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 673 • Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 61 • Yashwant Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2010 (3) WLC (Raj.) 167 • Lee Kun Hee & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 132
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that there was no case for interference with the impugned FIR and investigation pursuant thereto.
Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.
1. Accused-petitioners, by the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have assailed FIR No. 36 of 2014 dated 11th of February 2014, registered at Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner. In the impugned FIR, respondent-complainant has castigated accused-petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC.
2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that respondent-complainant laid a criminal complaint against petitioners and six others, inter-alia, with the allegation that Late Jawahara Ram was co-sharer of agricultural land bearing old Khasra No. 62/16 admeasuring 31 bighas and 15 biswas of village Raghunathsar, Tehsil & District Bikaner, with one half share in it. The complaint further reveals that the land in question was subsequently renumbered as new Khasra Nos. 15, 23, 24, 71/3 and 72/14 respectively. It is also asserted in the complaint that Jawahara Ram was in cultivatory possession of one half of the land out of total land of 9.16 hectares with Khatedari rights. Complainant has divulged with clarity and precision that Jawahara Ram took his last breath on 1st of April 1990 and complaint being power of attorney of his legal heir lodging this complaint. Making specific allegation in the complaint that both the petitioners and other accused persons, in order to grab agricultural land owned by Jawahara Ram, prepared a spurious power of attorney of Jawahara Ram and got it registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Bikaner on 30th of September 1990 and subsequently on the strength of that forged power of attorney of Jawahara Ram alienated the share of Jawahara Ram to accused Omprakash Siyag and one unknown person. The sale-deed in this behalf was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Bikaner on 25th of October 2005. Attributing criminal delinquency for offences under Section 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 472 IPC, the complaint further unfurls that execution of power of attorney of Jawahara Ram and subsequent sale transaction was carried out by petitioners and other accused persons inspite of the fact that they were in know of the fact that Jawahara Ram had expired as early as on 1st of April 1990. The fact that pursuant to sale-deed the land was also converted by Urban Improvement Trust for developing a colony in the form of plots also finds mention in the complaint. The complainant has also specifically averred in the complaint that when the proceedings were going on before the UIT/objected, he interjected but the same has not yielded any result, inasmuch as, the accused persons having political backing utilized their resources for columniation of conversion proceedings in favour of respective purchasers. Thus, the entire edifice of the complaint was precisely the fact that execution of power of attorney of Jawahara Ram and sale-deed on the strength of same were executed after death of Jawahara Ram and as such both the petitioners and other accused persons are guilty of committing the aforesaid offences.
3. The complaint was lodged by the second respondent being power of attorney of complainant before Special Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, PCPNDT Act Cases, Bikaner and the Court thereupon sent it for investigation to Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner. On receipt of the complaint for investigation, police registered impugned FIR against petitioners and other accused persons and commenced investigation.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE TO F.I.R.:
4. It is submitted by the petitioners that out of total land of 31 bighas 17 biswas, both Maga Ram and Jawahara Ram each had one half share and on 13-14 September 1990 on the strength of registered power of attorney of Maga Ram s/o. Battu Ram in favour of Jalu Ram - petitioner No. 2, and registered power of attorney of Jawahara Ram s/o. Fata Ram in the name of Govind Ram - petitioner No. 1, both the petitioners as well as their other relatives purchased total land measuring 142 bighas from the recorded Kh
