Babu Ram & Ors vs The State & Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 317 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Judgment reserved on : 08.01.2018
                   Judgment delivered on: 12.01.2018

+      W.P.(CRL) 955/2016

       BABU RAM & ORS
                                                              ..... Petitioners
                          Through:    Mr Pankaj Kumar, Adv

                          versus

       THE STATE & ANR
                                                          ..... Respondents
                          Through:    Mr Sanjay Lao, ASC with Insp Manoj
                                      Kumar Ahuja
                                      Mr Rajiv Kumar Mishra and
                                      Ms Shruti Sharma, Advs for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 The petitioners seek a quashing of the present FIR. Submission is that

this FIR which has been registered on 11.12.2015 is a counterblast to the

dismissal of the suit pending inter-se the parties which suit had been

dismissed by the Competent Court on 09.10.2015. Submission is that the

present FIR No.1349/2015 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/506

read with Section 34 of the IPC on 11.12.2015 is nothing but an abuse of the

process of the Court as the complainant having failed to get the benefit of

any order from the Civil Court has filed this complaint (pursuant to which

the present FIR has been registered) at a very belated stage. No case is made

out. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission has

placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in 2015 (2) ACR 2094

Savitri Pandey & Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others.

2 The complainant has been heard. Submission of the complainant is

that the petitioner has played a fraud upon the complainant and the petitioner

in connivance with the co-accused Ran Singh has generated fraudulent

documents which is evident from the FSL report dated 18.10.2017 (copy of

which has been placed on record). It is pointed out that the agreement to sell

purportedly executed by Jaswant Singh Dilawari and Sudershan Kaur relied

upon by the petitioner is a document which has been fudged upon and this is

evident from the report of the FSL which has opined that the khasra numbers

in the said document have been changed; this is in active connivance of the

petitioners with the co-accused Ran Singh.

3 Learned ASC for the State points out that investigation almost having

culminated to a large extent, this is a fit case where the FIR should not be

quashed and since the investigation is now in progress and presuming that no

evidence is collected against the petitioners, the said petitioners would be

discharged. However, a case of quashing of the FIR is not made out.

4 Record shows that the dispute is centred around a 1000 square yard of

plot of land located at situated in Village Karawal Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the suit property) which had allegedly been sold in

the year 1982 to Jaswant Singh Dilawari and Sudershan Kaur. A General

Power of Attorney dated 16.06.1983 was executed by Jaswant Singh

Dilawari and Sudershan Kaur transferring this property to Rajbir Singh and

Naval Singh (Petitioners No. 2 & 4). Vacant possession of the plot was also

handed over to the aforenoted petitioners. On 21.05.1999, petitioners No.2

& 4 vide a registered sale deed transferred this property to petitioner No. 3

who had been in exclusive possession of this property since 1999 to

December, 2015 when he was forcibly and illegally dispossessed from the

suit property by the complainant Bheem Sain.

5 The contention of the complainant is that one Ran Singh in the year

2005 had sold this property to the complainant. Thereafter with the

connivance of the present petitioners and Ran Singh, certain

interpolations/changes were made in the khasra number of the property i.e. in

the agreement to sell executed by Jaswant Singh Dilawari and Sudershan

Kaur dated 16.06.1983. Additional submission being that these documents

which contained the questioned interpolations and specimen signatures of

Ran Singh and his son were sent to the FSL who on examination found that

these interpolations were done by the same person; meaning thereby that Ran

Singh and his son had committed this fraud. Submission being reiterated

that this was in connivance with the present petitioners.

6 Record further shows that in the year 2005, a suit was filed by Ran

Singh against the present petitioners as also the complainant. The four

petitioners before this Court had been arrayed as defendants No. 1 to 4. The

complainant was arrayed as defendant No.5. This was a suit for permanent

injunction. The contention of Ran Singh was that he is the owner of the

disputed land and is in possession of the same. He had apprehension that the

defendants would grab his land and dis-locate him. However the suit was

dismissed on a preliminary issue. The Court was of the view that since the

subject matter of the land required an adjudication on title, the suit was

dismissed on 09.10.2015 giving opportunity to the petitioner therein (Ran

Singh) to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title qua the suit

property. This suit was dismissed on 09.10.2015. Present FIR was registered

on 11.12.2015 i.e. two months after the date of dismissal of the suit.

7 Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that this FIR has been

got registered by the complainant as a counterblast to the dismissal of the

suit. The complainant in his written statement in the Trial Court has never

agitated the documents which are now the subject matter of the present

complaint. The petitioners are the owners of this property on the strength of

an agreement to sell executed by Jaswant Singh Dilawari and Sudershan

Kaur in June, 1983. This document was never challenged at any stage.

Present petitioners have no role and no connivance with Ran Singh.

8 This Court notes that the present FIR has been registered against the

five persons of whom only four persons are before this Court. The 5 th person

Ran Singh/his son is prima facie culpable in view of the report of the FSL

dated 18.10.2017 which had examined the specimen signatures of Ran Singh

and the questioned documents which were the interpolations in the

agreement to sell executed by Jaswant Singh Dilawari and Sudershan Kaur

which documents are the strength of present petitioners. The fact that these

documents have been interpolated upon is thus no longer an issue. Whether

the petitioners had connived with Ran Singh to interpolate these documents

or whether this was the act of Ran Singh alone would require trial and this

Court is of the view that at this stage it may not be possible to quash the FIR.

9 The statement of learned ASC for the State is taken on record which is

to the effect that if no evidence surfaced qua the present petitioners in the

course of investigation is brought out the conspiracy of the petitioners along

with Ran Singh is not made out, a cancellation report will be filed against the

petitioners.

10 The Courts have time and again held that powers of the High Court

under Section 482 of the Cr.PC although wide have to be exercised with

great caution and should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional

circumstances. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not would depend

upon the facts of each particular case. At the same time, the allegations

made in the FIR have to be taken on their face value.

11 At this stage, it cannot be said that the FIR registered against the

petitioners has only a civil connotation. The suit No.264/05/2012 dismissed

in October, 2015 was on the preliminary issue i.e. on its maintainability;

dispute was never decided on merits. Moreover, even as per the complainant,

this interpolation in the agreement to sell dated 16.06.1983 has been done

later on. The fact that the petitioners were in possession of this disputed land

up to the year 2015 and thereafter they have been dispossessed is also a fact

which is not in dispute. This is the case of the petitioners themselves.

12 In this background, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant the

prayer made in the petition. Petition is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

JANUARY 12, 2018 A