AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 7.11.1992 case F.I.R. No. 277 was registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Rania, District Sirsa, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. on the basis of a written application submitted to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rania, by Khema Ram, Gheesa Ram and Amin Lal. The allegations against the petitioners were that Khema Ram etc. were allotted surplus land being landless persons and they were in cultivating possession of the same. Ajmer Singh petitioner dishonestly fabricated a fictitious general power of attorney bearing No. 100 dated 14.2.1990 registered by Sub-Registrar, Rania with an intention to grab the land of the complainants. On the basis of that fictitious power of attorney he suffered a decree with respect to the land belonging to Khema Ram etc. in favour of his sister's husband Gurdev Singh petitioner. The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the above said first information report and subsequent proceedings therein.

(2.) IT was alleged by the petitioners that the complainant party executed a valid general power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1 of their own free will and on the basis of the same a decree of exchange was validly passed on 16.3.1991 on the instructions of the complainant party. Gheesa Ram and others challenged the decree by way of civil suit No. 124-C of 1992 on the ground that the general power of attorney allegedly executed by them in favour of Ajmer Singh was false, fictitious and fabricated document and decree passed on the basis of that power of attorney was null and void, illegal and inoperative against them. As a civil suit was pending between the parties wherein the question whether the general power of attorney was a genuine document or not will be determined so initiation of criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process of the Court and was a device to harass and humiliate the petitioner. In the reply filed by the respondent it was maintained that thumb impressions on the power of attorney No. 100 dated 14.2.1990 were got compared with the specimen thumb impressions of the complaints and the expert opined that power of attorney did not bear the document and case was rightly registered against them. This fact was, however, admitted that a civil suit was pending between the parties in a Civil Court at Sirsa with respect to the decree passed in favour of petitioner No. 2.

(3.) AS a result I partly accept this petition and direct the prosecution to present the charge-sheet against the petitioners in Court after completion of investigation but the proceedings in the case will remain stayed till the final disposal of civil suit sending between the parties.