Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Dayal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondent
CRM-M-29384 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate and Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate; For the Petitioner in CRM-M-29384-2013.
Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate with Mr. M.S. J.S. Ghuman, Advocate; For the Petitioner in CRM-M-9171-2015.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent No.2-complainant

The failure to prove the original agreement nullifies allegations of forgery against subsequent agreements, justifying quashing of the FIR.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B - Quashing of FIR - The petitions were filed to quash an FIR regarding alleged cheating and forgery resulting from two conflicting agreements concerning the same land. - The FIR was registered after the complaint was made, 8 years after the execution of the alleged agreements. - The Court found that the agreement purportedly executed by the petitioner in favor of the complainant had not been proven, thus the execution of the second agreement and sale deed could not constitute forgery or cheating. (Paras 12, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners entered into transactions for a property, which led to allegations of forged documents and legal disputes over the rights concerning the property. There were conflicting findings from lower courts regarding the genuineness of the agreements made.

Findings of Court:
The Court established that the original agreement in favor of the complainant was not proven valid. As such, there was no basis to uphold allegations of fraud or forgery against the petitioners.

Issues: The Court addressed whether the FIR could stand given the absence of a valid original agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that in the absence of proof of the alleged fraud through the original agreement, the subsequent agreements could not be deemed as fraudulent or forged.

Result: FIR No.121 dated 09.06.2012 along with all subsequent proceedings was quashed.

Table of Content
1. quashing fir under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual basis for agreements and transactions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. assessment of previous court judgments on agreements (Para 9 , 10)
4. the procedural delays and lack of evidence for counterclaims in fir registration. (Para 11 , 12)
5. judicial requirement to prove agreements for relief (Para 14 , 16)
6. judicial analysis on previous rulings regarding evidence presentation. (Para 15)
7. final ruling and quashing of fir (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing No.CRM-M- 29384-2013 titled as Dayal Singh v. State of Punjab & another and CRM-M-9171-2015 titled as Kanwaljit Singh v. State of Punjab & another as the same are arising out of the same FIR. However, for the sake of convenience the facts have been taken from CRM-M-9171-2015.

2. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.121 dated 09.06.2012 registered under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings are that Kanwaljit Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-9171-2015) entered into an agreement to sell with Dayal Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-29384-2013) with respect to land measuring 31 Kanals 12 Marlas 5 Sarsai situated at village Jagatpur Kalan on 30.06.2003 (Ex.D1 in the civil suit for specific performance filed by complainant-Bakshish Singh against the petitioners).

4. It is alleged that the petitioner-Kanwaljit Singh had also entered into an agreement to sell with the present complainant-Bakshish Singh for the said land and had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as earnest money on 29.11.2003 (Ex.P1 with the suit for specific performance).

5. A sale deed was executed by Kanwaljit Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-9171-2015) in favour of Dayal Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-29384- 2013) on 09.02.2004 (Ex.D2 with the suit for specific performance).

6. The aforementioned sale deed was challenged by way of a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.11.2003 by Bakshish Singh (plaintiff-complainant herein) in which Kanwaljit Singh (accused-petitioner in CRM-M-9171-2015) was defendant No.1 whereas Dayal Singh (accused-petitioner in CRM-M-29384-2013) was defendant No.2. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 14.03.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurdaspur (Annexure P-3) and the finding of the Court was as under:-

"27. The facts of the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff comes closure to the facts of this case and therefore, I have arrived at the conclusion that the agreement to sell exhibit D-1 and the sale deed exhibit D-2 allegedly executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 are nothing but the sham transactions and waste piece of paper whereas the agreement exhibit P-1 is found to be valid agreement. Therefore, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.2

28. In view of my findings on the issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is held entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell and not any alternative relief of money decree and therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.

Issue No.3

29. In view of my findings on the issue no.1, the suit of the plaintiff is found legally maintainable and this issue is decided in favour or the plaintiff.

Issue No.4

30. In view of my findings on the issue no.1 defendant no.2 is found to be not a bona fide purchaser as both the documents exhibit D-1 and D-2 are mere paper transactions. So, this issue is decided against defendant no.2. In view of these observations, both these documents are declared null and void and this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.

Issue No.5- Relief

31. In view of my findings on the issues mentioned above, the suit of