IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Biaso Devi & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CRM-M-48542 of 2017(O&M), CRM-M-11638 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-05-2018
Fraud - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 193, 196, 120-B - The court discussed and referenced various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to fraud and conspiracy. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding the law and discouraging fraudulent litigation at all levels.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of fraud and conspiracy within a family regarding the inheritance of land. The petitioners were accused of producing a forged compromise deed and playing a fraud to grab the land of the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were involved in fraudulent activities and did not show willingness to settle the matter amicably, leading to the dismissal of their petitions.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the registration of a fraudulent compromise deed, delay in lodging the FIR, and the potential threat to the complainant and prosecution witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a judgment obtained by fraud is null and void in the eyes of the law. It also highlighted the duty to discourage greedy litigation and uphold the purity of judicial proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and requested the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
1. By this order the above two petitions are being disposed off filed by both the petitioners namely Biaso Devi and Kamal Kishore (mother and son, respectively) arising out of the FIR No.26 dated 27.05.2017 under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 193, 196 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' - for short) registered at Police Station Kanwan Tehsil and District Pathankot.
With the consent of both the parties and for convenience, the facts of the case are taken out from CRM-M-48542-2017 (Biaso Devi vs. State of Punjab).
2. The allegation of the prosecution in brief are as under:-
3. That CRM-M-14409-2017 was filed by complainant Kaushalya Devi wife of Late Tej Ram (mother-in-law of petitioner-Biaso Devi and grand mother of Kamal Kishore) and which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2017 and operating part of the same reads as under:-
“Upon hearing arguments at length for some time and on perusal of the records, the present petition stands disposed off with direction to official respondent No.2 to expeditiously consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-6) moved by the petitioner within the framework of law in view of the guidelines laid down in “Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others (2014) 2 SCC 1” preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
4. It is necessary to mention that in the above petition, Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot was impleaded as party-respondent No.2 and Kamal Kishore and Biaso Devi were respondents No.4 and 5 respectively. The brief contents of representation (P-6) mentioned in the order dated 27.04.2017 and which is the basis for registration of the present FIR are as under:-
5. That father-in-law of the complainant-Kaushalya Devi namely Sant Ram had 15 kanal 2 marlas land in village Sarna and he died on 09.01.1983. Her husband Tej Ram died on 02.10.1987 and thereafter her son Palwinder Pal (husband of Biaso Devi) also died on 21.05.1991. Petitioner-Biaso Devi by preparing a forged Will of Sant Ram in favour of her son Kamal Kishore filed a civil suit on the basis thereof, but they lost before learned Trial Court. Thereafter an appeal was preferred in the Court of learned District Judge, but remained unsuccessful and ultimately filed a Regular Second Appeal in this Court and during the pendency of the RSA, Biaso Devi and Kamal Kishore submitted a fake compromise deed dated 01.08.2009 before this Court and on the basis thereof the RSA was decided in their favour. It is further alleged that neither she was aware about any compromise; nor went to the High Court, but by writing her name at number No.1 of the compromise, a fake thumb impression was affixed and tried to grab the share of her land. On 20.03.2017 she submitted an application in the Police Station Kanwan and thereafter on 29.03.2017 an application was made in the office of SSP, Pathankot, but no action was taken and thereafter she filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and which was disposed off on 27.04.2017. In pursuance of the order dated 27.04.2017, passed by this Court the representation (P-6) was inquired into by the Police and statement of complainant was recorded and she affirmed the allegations levelled in the said representation. Complainant-Kaushalya Devi submitted the photocopies of alleged Will of Sant Ram, decision of learned JMIC, Pathankot dated 08.07.1998, High Court decision dated 05.08.2009 rendered in RSA No.1012 of 2009, compromise dated 01.08.2009 original Fard of land and original affidavit dated 19.03.2013. Statement of one Balkar Singh son of Sardool Singh was also recorded and he corroborated the allegations of the complainant. After inquiry DSP, Sub-division Dharkalan, Pathankot found that Sant Ram was having the land measuring 15 Kanals 4 Marlas at village Sarna Had Bast No.244 Tehsil Pathankot and 13 Kanals 19 Marlas at village Raj Prura Had Bast No.252 Tehsil Path
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.