DARSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, CrPC filed by the accused-petitioners, seeking quashment, of FIR No. 109 dated 11.3.1995, registered under Sections 420/465/468/471/120B, IPC, on the basis of compromise, effected between the parties.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on the complaint of Smt. Viney Bala, complainant-respondent No. 2, the aforesaid FIR was registered in Police Station City Yamuna Nagar. In the said FIR, lodged by Smt. Viney Bala, it was alleged that they had bought one house in Model Town in the year 1991 and it was lying vacant for many days and many persons used to take it for holding functions and they used to give them for use. It was alleged that Smt. Sushma had illicit relations with her husband, Subhash Chander, for a long time, about which she (Viney Bala) had no knowledge. It was alleged that because of the illicit relations, Smt. Sushma and her husband, Darshan Lal had taken the said house from her husband, Subhash Chander. It was alleged that after 8-10 days, her husband, Subhash Chander, told Smt. Sushma and her husband Darshan Lal, to vacate the said house and go back to their own house, which was lying vacant, as his wife (Smt. Viney Bala) did not know that he had given the said house to them. It was alleged that they asked her husband that they may be allowed to continue staying in that house for sometime more, whereupon, her husband, in good faith, permitted them to do so. It was alleged that during the said period, the electric connection to the house was disconnected, whereupon, Smt. Sushma asked her husband for re-connection of the electricity. It was alleged that initially her husband declined the request, but lateron, Smt. Sushma, after making him to drink alcohol and by making sweet talks, told him that they would themselves obtain the re-connection. It was alleged that her husband used to go there everyday and he was made to drink alcohol everyday and whatever Smt. Sushma used to say to him, he used to do the same. It was alleged that one day, they brought a stamp-paper worth Rs. 3/- and obtained the signatures of her husband thereon. It was alleged that on another day, Smt. Sushma, after making her husband drunk and after misleading him with sweet talks, told him that they had prepared a file for electricity and he should sign on it so that they may get the electric re-connection and in the said file, they got the signatures of her husband on blank stamp-paper. It was alleged that on the said stamp-paper, they got typed an agreement of Rs. 3.75 lakhs. It was alleged that it was a total fraud and known to all. It was alleged that the house, in question, which was in her name (Viney Bala) and her husband's name (Subhash Chander), be got returned to them.

(3.) IN the written reply, filed by Inspector Balbir Singh. SHO, it was alleged that after the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the same was investigated by the Police and after the completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the petitioners in the Court in October, 1996, and the same was pending before the Judicial Magistrate. It was alleged that the investigation of the case revealed that the accused-petitioners had forged agreement to sell by obtaining the signatures of Subhash Chander on a stamp- paper fraudulently. It was alleged that in this manner, the accused- petitioners had committed the offence punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120B, IPC. It was further alleged that the launching of civil proceedings did not bar the criminal proceedings. In the written statement, filed by complainant-respondent No. 2. Smt. Viney Bala, it was alleged that the petitioners had not come to the Court with clean hands. It was alleged that the trial Court had already framed charges against the petitioners on 8.9.1998 and the petitioners, by misleading the Court, had obtained the stay order on 26.2.1999 to the effect that charge be not framed against the petitioners, even though the charge had already been framed on 8.9.1998. It was further alleged that the answering respondent had levelled specific allegations against the accused-petitioners in the FIR and after the investigation, the Police had submitted the final report and the charges had already been framed. It was further alleged that the answering respondent had compromised only the civil dispute and she had never compromised the criminal litigation, in pursuance of the present FIR. It was alleged that since there was no compromise regarding the FIR, there was no question of quashing the same on the basis of compromise. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed.