Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Tarsem Singh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
CRM-M-301 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-09-2019
Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate, for the Respondent
The judgment emphasizes the need for investigating agencies to apply their minds and provide comprehensive reasoning in final reports, and for courts to ensure due application of judicial mind in framing charges.
Headnote:
Family Dispute - Criminal Proceedings - Foreign Exchange Management Act - Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC - Section 173 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a family dispute where the first informant filed a criminal prosecution against his father and mother, alleging wrongful transfer of property, violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act, and other criminal offenses. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court and that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature. It criticized the investigating agency for not applying its mind and deprecated the practice of submitting final reports without explaining how the offenses were made out.
Issues: 1. Whether the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court? 2. Whether the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and inappropriate for criminal proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first informant failed to provide evidence of forcible dispossession or removal of locks, and that the transfer of property did not give rise to criminal offenses. It emphasized the need for investigating agencies to avoid presenting final reports unless a criminal offense is genuinely made out.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings, and directed the Registrar General to circulate the judgment to all Session Judges and respective Home Secretaries to address the practice of submitting final reports without proper reasoning.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - It is unfortunate that members of a family are litigating in Courts rather than settling their dispute by sitting together. Anyhow, the Court has to discharge its functions. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide.
2. A small pedigree table would be useful to understand the dispute and inter se relationship:-
3. The petitioners are Tarsem Singh and Satnam Kaur, husband and wife. First informant is Jagjit Singh son of Tarsem Singh. In other words, the first informant has lodged a criminal prosecution against his father and mother.
4. Jagjit Singh-respondent No.2 filed a complaint with averments that there was a family settlement between the parties and plot measuring 12 marlas situated in village Kurala Kalan was given to him and in lieu thereof, constructed house had fallen to the share of Tarsem Singh and his son Manjeet Singh. As per the family settlement, Jagjit Singh erected a boundary wall around the plot and also filled mud in the plot to raise its level by spending 3-4 lacs. After raising boundary wall and the gate at the entrance, a lock was put by the first informant. It is averred that when representative of the first informant-respondent visited the said plot, he found another lock at the entrance door and on inquiry, it was found that Tarsem Singh had threatened the representative with dire consequences by shouting that this is the property of Tarsem Singh and nobody should enter without his permission. When Amrik Singh intervened, he was pushed and threatened. When he scrutinized the revenue record, he came to know that petitioners namely his father and mother had conspired with each other and sold the plot to Simar Kaur vide sale deed No. 1922. Thus, wrongful loss was claimed to have been caused to the first informant. Under valuation in the sale deed to avoid stamp duty was also alleged. Violation of Section 6 of Foreign Exchange Management Act (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulation 2000 was also alleged. Tarsem Singh and Manjit Singh are non-resident Indians and the transfer deed executed by Tarsem Singh in favour of Manjit Singh dated 15.07.2011 is without seeking permission of the Reserve Bank of India and the sale proceeds have not been mentioned in the transfer deed. Jagjit Singh-first informant has a legal share in the ancestral property which has been wrongly transferred in favour of Manjit Singh in illegal manner. The entire amount has been paid through Hawala transaction abroad and the transfer deed is part of well planned conspiracy of the accused.
5. The police after holding enquiry registered FIR under Sections 420, 447, 506 of the IPC and after completion of the investigation submitted a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
6. It has come on record that Smt. Satnam Kaur-petitioner No.2 had purchased plot measuring 14 marlas vide sale deed dated 02.08.1974. Later on, she sold plot measuring 12 marlas in favour of Smt. Simar Kaur vide sale deed dated 22.06.2011. It has also come on record that Tarsem Singh had executed a transfer deed in favour of his other son Manjit Singh with respect to land measuring 57 kanal and 9 marlas vide registered deed dated 15.07.2011.
7. The police after investigation did not find violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulation 2000, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. It has also come on record that Jagjit Singh-first informant had filed a suit against Tarsem Singh, Satnam Kaur, Manjit Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur claiming that the land measuring 59 kanals 8 marlas being l/3rd share of land measuring 178 kanals 5 marlas is Hindu joint family co-parcenary property and therefore, the plaintiff has a right by birth. The result of abov
