Delhi High Court
Mahender Pal Singh vs State on 26 July, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* 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
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
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
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
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.''
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
