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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Gopal Dass & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-22688 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Mr. D.S. Khurana and Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocates; For the Petitioners
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Soi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 - Quashing of FIR - Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 is invoked to quash an FIR registered against the petitioners, alleging fraud related to the execution of wills and property mutation. The court finds that the FIR was filed after a considerable delay and the issues have been previously adjudicated in civil proceedings, thus questioning the applicability of criminal charges. (Paras 1, 9, 40)

(B) The court reiterated that FIRs cannot be quashed solely based on civil adjudications or delays unless substantial evidence of mala fide intention is shown. The continuation of criminal proceedings must not compromise justice and recognizes separate standards of proof in civil and criminal matters. (Paras 40, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR accusing them of participating in a fraud regarding land ownership and wills executed by their ancestor, with allegations dating back to events that transpired over 56 years ago. The FIR was based on claims regarding the misrepresentation of property ownership through oral gifts and subsequent mutations.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that ambiguities exist regarding the genuineness of the claims made in the FIR, and sufficient grounds were present to suggest that the allegations might stem from longstanding familial disputes rather than outright criminal intentions.

Issues: The main legal questions revolved around whether the FIR could be dismissed based on the significant delay in filing it, the status of previous civil judgments on the same issues, and whether criminal offenses were established due to the absence of identifiable deceitful acts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that mere allegations of fraudulent intent were insufficient to warrant criminal proceedings without clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing, emphasizing that civil disputes do not automatically translate into criminal charges unless distinct criminal elements are demonstrated.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. quashing of fir requires clear factual basis. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. civil suit outcomes affect fir validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. delay in registering fir raised for consideration. (Para 8 , 12 , 20 , 22 , 24)
4. arguments focus on delay and previous litigation. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 , 14)
5. maintaining that findings of civil court are non-binding. (Para 19 , 21 , 23)
6. disputed facts must be resolved through evidence. (Para 26 , 27 , 30 , 31)
7. inherent powers of court in quashing fir not absolute. (Para 36 , 38)

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code") has been invoked seeking quashing of FIR No. 77, dated 23.06.2010, under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamunanagar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case unfolds with admitted facts reflecting the execution of Will way back on 14.04.1937 by Banu Mal in favour of this daughter Munni Devi bequeathing the entire estate in her favour. Thereafter, the second Will came into being also executed by Banu Mal dated 27.03.1943 in favour of Raghubir Singh father of Devi Sarup giving only a life estate and also to treat Munni Devi as his daughter in the said Will and binding Raghubir Singh to pay an amount of Rs.100/- to Munni Devi for each harvest out of the income from the said property. The Will further consisted of the rights to be bequeathed of entire property to the legal heirs of Munni Devi, after the death of Raghubir Singh. On 26.02.1954, mutation No. 1427 was entered on the basis of one oral 'Hiba' allegedly made by Banu Mal @ Banu Ram in favour of Devi Sarup son of Raghubir Singh, Maya Devi wife of Devi Sarup and Kesho Devi wife of Raghubir Singh for a land measuring 835 kanals 7 marlas within the revenue estate of Village Rapri, District Yamuna Nagar. The said mutation was sanctioned on 02.03.1954. The pertinent aspect turning the whole the case came to light that Mutation Nos. 1422, 1423 dated 28.02.1954 show that the consolidation in the village Rapri commenced on 25.08.1952 and completed on 28.02.1954, which creates a doubt to the genuinity of mutation entered on 26.02.1954 and sanctioned on 02.03.1954. It is noted here that Devi Sarup and others raised claim of possession and ownership over the land in question on the basis of Mutation No. 1427, sanctioned on 02.03.1954.

3. Banu Mal died having left only one legal heir i.e. Munni Devi who breathed his last at Janoli Khera, Saharanpur (UP) on 14.11.1954 due to various ailments where he was confined to bed for quite a long time. It has also came on record that certain alienation were made by various other persons as well over the land in question. Pawan Kumar Gupta son of Munni Devi preferred a Civil Suit on 11.10.1973 for permanent injunction restraining Raghubir Singh-defendant from alienating the suit property as was also stipulated in the 2nd Will dated 27.03.1943 urging that Raghubir Singh would hold the property as life estate without any power to alienate. The said suit was dismissed 11.10.1973, which was reversed by Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.02.1976 and RSA No. 586 of 1976, titled "Raghubir Singh v. Pawant Kumar" was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.06.1984 (Annexure P-2), holding that intention of testor Banu Mal is clear from the Will that he wanted to give his property to the children of his daughter-Munni Devi after the death of Raghubir Singh. It would not be out of place to mention here that in the said civil litigation the interpretation of Will dated 27.03.1943 was in question along-with locus-standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. While passing the judgment in RSA No. 586 of 1976, an oral Hibaba dated 26.02.1954 was made and on that basis this Court had declared th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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