MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.148 dated 14.09.2011, registered against the petitioner under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. Mr. Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an enquiry was conducted into the matter by a senior officer. He came to the conclusion that proceedings were civil in nature. Thus, no FIR could have been registered. He further submits that offence of cheating and forgery is not made out. He has relied upon judgment Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & another, 2009 4 RCR(Cri) 540 . Prayer has been opposed by the State counsel. According to him, enquiry was conducted prior to registration of FIR. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. In the investigation, he has been found guilty and challan has been presented before the competent court. Thus, no case for quashing of FIR is made out. He has referred to reply by way of affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gill (Rural), Ludhiana.

(2.) It appears that complainant submitted an application to Director General of Police, Punjab against Malkiat Singh, Ranjit Kaur Brar, Parminder Kaur Gill and Paramjit Kaur @ Angrej Kaur. He stated that Ranjit Kaur Brar and Paramjit Kaur @ Angrej Kaur approached him representing themselves to be owners of total land measuring 18 Acres. Petitioner Malkiat Singh represented himself to be power of attorney holder of Paramjit Kaur. He informed that he also has power of attorney on behalf of Ranjit Kaur Brar and Parminder Kaur Gill. Petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 2.9.2005 with respondent No.2 as power of attorney of Parminder Kaur Gill etc. The land was to be sold for total consideration of Rs.6,51,00,000/-. On assurance given by the accused, respondent No.2 paid various amounts on various dates. A total amount of Rs.1,11,00,000/- were paid to the accused. As respondent No.2 asked the accused to execute the sale deed, he disclosed that a court case was pending regarding the land in question. Respondent No.2, thus, demanded his money back, but he was informed that same has been distributed amongst all the accused. At that time, respondent No.2 came to know that he had been cheated by the petitioner and other accused.

(3.) It appears, plea of the petitioner before this court for grant of pre-arrest bail was also dismissed vide order dated 7.9.2012, passed by a coordinate bench. In view of nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that no case for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court is made out. The plea of the petitioner that ingredients of offence alleged are not made out, is without any substance. This issue can be examined only after evidence is led before the trial court. Judgment in Dalip Kaur's case cannot help the case of the petitioner, as facts of the instant case are totally different. Besides, petitioner is a proclaimed offender. He has never submitted to the process of law. It is inexplicable how he can invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing of FIR. Admittedly, challan has already been presented against him. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.