SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(P&H) 886

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajive Bhalla, J.
Baldev Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37367 of 2003,
Decided On : AUGUST 22, 2005

Intentional concealment of material facts and absence of special circumstances pleaded or proved render a second complaint an abuse of the process of law.

Headnote:

Forgery - Criminal Complaint - Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC - [Section 420, Section 467, Section 468, Section 471, Section 120-B] - The court quashed the complaint and summoning order as the second complaint was found to be an abuse of the process of law due to intentional concealment of material facts and absence of special circumstances pleaded or proved.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging forgery of a general power of attorney and subsequent sale of his property. The first complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution, and a second complaint was filed without disclosing the filing and dismissal of the first complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the second complaint was an abuse of the process of law due to intentional concealment of material facts and absence of special circumstances pleaded or proved. The court quashed the complaint and summoning order.

Issues: The issues involved the intentional concealment of material facts, absence of special circumstances pleaded or proved, and the abuse of the process of law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a second complaint on the same facts could only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, provided the complainant discloses the filing and dismissal of the first complaint and pleads and prima facie establishes the existence of special circumstances.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the complaint and summoning order, and stated that the complainant would be at liberty to seek such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with the law.

Judgment

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.34104-M of.2003 and Crl. Misc. No.3767-M of 2003, as both the petitions arise from the same complaint.

2. The petitioners, by way of the present petitions, filed, under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. pray for the quashing of the complaint, titled as "atma Singh V/s. Baldev Singh and others", filed under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the ipc, (Annexure P-1), pending before the sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba bakala, and the summoning order, dated 1.7.2003 (Annexure P-2), passed by the sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba bakala.

3. The facts, that have led to the filing of the president petitions, are briefly narrated hereinafter.

4. The petitioners and the complainant are closely related. Baldev Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.34104-M of 2003) and Sukhdev Singh, Lakhbir singh, Sukhdev Singh and Raghbir Singh (petitioners No.2 to 5 in Crl. Misc. No.37367-M of 2003) are the sons of Mangal Singh. Atma Singh, the complainant, is the real uncle of the aforementioned individuals. Satnam Kaur (petitioner No.6 in Crl. Misc. No.37367-M of 2003) is the wife of Baldev Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.34104-M of 2003 ).

5. As per the averments, made in the petitions, the complainant, who is a close relative and was living with the petitioners, executed a general power of attorney, before the Sub Registrar on 16.2.2000 (Annexure P-3 ). The general power of attorney was thumb marked by the complainant and witnessed by Gurdip singh, Lambardar of village Karalian and sukhdev Singh (petitioners No.1 and 2 in Crl. Misc. No.37367-M of 2003 ).

6. It is further alleged that for reasons, best known to the complainant, he filed a criminal against the petitioners in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate, Baba Bakala, pleading therein that the general power of attorney had been prepared by fraud and impersonation. The complainant never appeared before the Sub Registrar and the petitioners produced some other person, who impersonated the complainant, affixed thumb impressions on the general power of attorney, which were passed off as the thumb impressions of the complainant. By using the aforementioned general power of attorney, Baldev Singh executed three sale deeds on 21.2.2000 in favour of Lakhbir Singh, Sukhdev singh, Raghbir Singh and Satnam Kaur. The matter was reported to the police, whereupon a compromise was affected on 26.2.2000. On the basis of this compromise, the complainant was persuaded not take any action against the petitioners, as they confessed to the alleged crime and signed the compromise. The petitioner executed two registered sale deed dated 1.3.2000 showing that the complainant had purchased land measuring 14 kanals 16 marls from Lakhbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh. However, they surreptitiously prepared a cancellation deed dated 1.3.2000, thus, manipulating the entire matter. The complainant preferred an application before the police authorities. As no action was taken, he filed a complaint on 21.10.2000. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant sought to produce an expert to prove that the thumb impressions, appearing on the general power of attorney, were not his. On 10.7.2001. Ex. C7, Mark A, was tendered and the case was adjourned. Thereafter, the matter was reeatedly adjourned, at the request of counsel for the complainant. Eventually, on 28.10.2001, an application, under Sec.311 Cr. P. C. , was filed for examination of a Finger Print Expert, which application was allowed. However, on 12.2.2002, the complaint was dismissed in default, as the complainant did not put in appearance.

7. On 26.2.2002, the complainant filed another complaint, subject matter of the present petitions, levelling identical allegations. The only difference being that in the second complaint, the complainant alleges that his thumb impressions had been obtained on blank papers by misrepresentation for preparation of a new ration card and voters


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top