* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.4988/2005
Date of Decision: 26.07.2011
MAHENDER PAL SINGH ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.H.M.Singh, Adv.
Versus
STATE ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N. Dudeja, APP.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest ?
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.337/1998, registered under Section 420/467/468/471/201/120B at P.S. Chandni Mahal, in respect of which the trial is pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the property bearing Nos.2466 and 2058, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi were Crl.MC No.4988/2005 Page 1 of 6 owned by one Ram Murti Pehlwan. It is stated that Ram Murti Pehlwan expired on 03.07.1979 and he is alleged to have left behind a 'Will' dated 28.06.1979 in favour of his wife Samundri Devi (since deceased) in respect of the aforesaid property. Samundri Devi is alleged to have applied for grant of Letters of Administration under Indian Succession Act before the learned District Judge, which was alleged to have been granted on 09.02.1999. During the pendency of these proceedings before the learned District Judge, Madan Gopal, son of Samundri Devi, filed a complaint on 01.08.1998 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, under Section 200 Cr.PC for registering an FIR against his mother, Samundri Devi and the present petitioner, Mahender Pal Singh for committing an offence under Section 420/467 IPC. On an application of the petitioner, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi Police to register an FIR for an offence of forging documents and using forged documents as genuine. This is how the aforesaid FIR is Crl.MC No.4988/2005 Page 2 of 6 stated to have been registered against the present petitioner.
3. The police after conducting investigation filed a charge-
sheet, which is presently pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for trial.
4. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the afore-said FIR and the consequent proceedings, which are pending before the trial Court, on the ground that the FIR and the criminal proceedings ought not to have been continued as the dispute is essentially civil in nature.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP. I have also gone through the averments made in the petition.
6. The dispute between the petitioner and the complainant Madan Gopal, who happen to be brothers, is essentially with regard to two conflicting Wills purported to have been made by their father. The 'Will', dated 28.06.1979, is the 'Will', on the basis of which the present petitioner is purported to have obtained mutation in his favour and in the favour of his deceased mother. In respect of the said 'Will', the Letters of Administration were granted by the Crl.MC No.4988/2005 Page 3 of 6 District Judge on 09.02.1999. But before the grant of Letters of Administration, the complainant, Madan Gopal is purported to have made a complaint on 01.08.1998 before Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of which the FIR in question has been registered.
7. In the complaint, the complainant has relied upon a 'Will' dated 25.06.1979 under which he happens to be the beneficiary. The allegation made in the complaint is that the 'Will' dated 28.06.1979 is forged, as it was not signed by his father. The police has investigated into the matter and considered it to be a fit case for prosecution. Therefore, in these circumstances, to contend that the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute would not be correct because one of the 'Will' is admittedly forged. In the present case, according to the complainant, Madan Gopal, the forged 'Will', happens to be the one in which the present petitioner is the beneficiary.
8. It is settled legal position that the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC are extraordinary powers of the High Court and these extraordinary powers have to be exercised with great Crl.MC No.4988/2005 Page 4 of 6 deal of caution and circumspection and that too very sparingly. It is also enjoined that where a disputed question of fact is involved, the Court should not embark on going into the respective merits of the case and quash the FIR at the threshold itself. The petitioner has cited few judgments, in this regard, in his petition. It will be worth to refer to the judgment titled State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., 2003 (9) JT 284, wherein it has been held as under:
"As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power required great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.'' Crl.MC No.4988/2005 Page 5 of 6
9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the case, I feel that since the present case essentially involves a disputed question of fact, which has to be established by the parties before the Court below, this court should refrain from scuttling the entire case, more so, when the FIR had been registered in 1998 and there has been no stay in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner ought not to have been able to tell the court what is the stage of the trial. More than a decade has gone by and I hope and trust that the trial must be at a fairly advanced stage and, therefore, by quashing the proceedings this Court cannot pre-empt of the decision to be passed by the learned trial Court.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
July 26, 2011 SS Crl.MC No.4988/2005 Page 6 of 6