Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab. Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been filed by Narinder Singh - petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 456 dated 22.9.2008, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, in Police Station Sadar Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. According to the petitioner his marriage had taken place with Shelly, nice of complainant-respondent No.2 on 21.3.2004. In the beginning their relations were cordial but the same became strained when his wife started pressurising him to separate himself from his parents. Ultimately she left the matrimonial home on 2.1.2007. She got registered FIR No. 67, dated 6.2.2008, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against him and his family members in Police Station Sadar Amristar by levelling false allegations of demand of dowry and beatings. He approached this Court Crl. Misc. No. M – 19169 of 2009 (O&M) -2- vide Crl. Misc. No. 7071-M of 2008 for the grant of anticipatory bail. During the pendency of that application, it was stated by her counsel that one scooter given in the shape of dowry has been sold and certain gold articles were yet to be recovered. On the other hand, it was submitted by his counsel that almost all the dowry articles have already been recovered. This Court allowed that application after giving a direction to him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant/his wife in lieu of the alleged unrecovered dowry articles belonging to her and bank draft of that amount was handed over to her in the Court itself. In order to harass and humiliate him and his family members, the present FIR was got lodged by respondent No.2. The scooter was given as dowry by respondent No.2 to his own nice at the time of marriage and it was with his consent and the consent of Shelly that the same was sold while their relations were cordial. After their relations became sour false and frivolous FIR was registered after a delay of two years and three months. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are not made out and no mens rea has been attributed to him. No prima facie case is made out against him from the contents of the FIR nor any offence is made out therefrom. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for forging his signatures and other documents in order to sell his scooter bearing Registration no. PB-02AP 7367 make Chetak Bajaj. It was narrated therein that the petitioner came to know from the office of DTO that scooter is in possession of one Ajit Singh and he never sold it to him Crl. Misc. No. M – 19169 of 2009 (O&M) -3- and he never signed any documents for the transfer of the scooter. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR No. 67 dated 6.2.2008 was got lodged by Shelly, wife of the petitioner, under Section 406 and 498-A IPC. In that FIR it was also mentioned that her parents had given one scooter make Chetak Bajaj at the time of the marriage. Scooter as mentioned in the present FIR is the same scooter. Infact that scooter was sold by the petitioner with the consent of respondent No.2 and his own wife while their relations were cordial. Therefore, it cannot be said that any of such offences, as mentioned in the FIR, were committed by him. Moreover by virtue of the order dated 21.5.2008 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 7071 – M of 2008 , the petitioner had every right to sell the scooter after his wife received Rs.50,000/- from him, which was received by her in lieu of the alleged unrecovered dowry articles, including the scooter. From these facts it stands proved that the petitioner did not commit any such offence and as such the FIR is liable to be quashed. On the other hand it was submitted by learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the offences as mentioned in the FIR are clearly made out from the contents thereof. The Court is not to go into the truthfulness of those facts while deciding the present petition. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made false documents in order to get the scooter transferred in the name of Ajit Singh. The order passed by this Court in the said criminal miscellaneous petition cannot stand in the way of respondent No.2 as that order was modified vide order dated

17.7.2008 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 29745 of 2008. It was held by this Court that the order dated 21.5.2008 will not affect the merits of the case during Crl. Misc. No. M – 19169 of 2009 (O&M) -4- trial nor would mean to prejudice the rights of respondent No.2 to claim the unrecovered articles or their value. It has recently been held by the Apex Court in V.V.S.Rama Sharma Vs. State of U.P (2010)(1) Crl. Court Cases 842 that the High Court ordinarily would not excercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceedings, and in particular a First Information Report, unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct, in their entirety disclosed no cognizable offence. Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. Therefore, it is to be seen if the FIR in questioin discloses the commission of any offence or not. Minute perusal of that FIR makes it very much clear that the allegation against the petitioner is that he sold the scooter, which was in the name of respondent No.2, to one Ajit Singh and got the same transferred in his name by fabricating the documents. Even if it is assumed that this scooter was given to the petitioner at the time of his marriage and the value thereof had already been received by respondent No.2 at the time of decision of the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, even then it cannot be said that this FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he prepared false documents for getting scooter transferred in the name of Ajit Singh. That amount to commission of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Crl. Misc. No. M – 19169 of 2009 (O&M) -5- Number of principles were laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supplement (1) SCC 335 for the quashing of the FIR. As per principle (7) when the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance from the accused with a view to spite him due to private or personal grudge, the same can be quashed. Can it be said that the present FIR is actuated with mala fide or has been got registered with a malicious intention with ulterior motive or wreck vengeance. For proper appreciation of the matter the relevant portion of the order dated 21.5.2008 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 7071 – M of 2008 is reproduced below:- "Learned State counsel has informed that almost all the articles have been recovered but the scooter could not be recovered. Without entering into the controversy the details of the articles, which are to be recovered, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in lieu of the alleged unrecovered dowry articles belonging to the complainant. A bank draft in the sum of Rs.50,000/- has been handed over to the complainant in the Court." It was after the passing of that order that respondent No.2 got registered the present FIR on 22.9.2008. He did not narrate therein that he was owner of the scooter. He only narrated that the scooter was in his name and that he has come to know that the said scooter was in possession of one Crl. Misc. No. M – 19169 of 2009 (O&M) -6- Ajit Singh to whom it was never sold by him. It was quite natural for respondent No.2 to make enquiries about the scooter after the same was not recovered from the petitioner to whom the same was given at the time of marriage. It is also narrated in the FIR that respondent No.2 came to know from the office of the DTO that the scooter was presently in possession of said Ajit Singh. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that a motor vehicle is transferred in the name of transfree only when documents are executed in his favour by the owner/transfrer. In the reply submitted by the State to the present petition, it has been categorically pleaded that the investigation is being conducted by one Karam Singh ASI and real facts of the case will come into light only after the completion of the case/enquiry. It is also very much clear from that reply that the documents have been sent to FSL, Punjab in order to verify if the same have been fabricated by the petitioner or not. There is nothing on the record to conclude that FIR has been got lodged by respondent No.2 with mala fide intentions or maliciously in order to wreck vengeance. In view of what has been said above, I conclude that there is no merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. March 22, 2010 tripti (Gurdev Singh) Judge