BHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel. On the basis of a complaint given by Gurdip Singh, second respondent herein, FIR No. 112, dated 29.4.1996, of Police Station City Barnala (Annexure P2) was registered. The main allegations in the complaint are as follows:

(2.) THAT the petitioner herein Bhan Singh and two other persons by name Jaswant Singh and Harbans Singh wanted to grab the land of Sham Kaur and with that intention Jaswant Singh and Harbans Singh filed Civil Suit No. 262 dated 2.6.89 against Sham Kaur in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class Barnala. It is also alleged that they produced some other woman to impersonate Sham Kaur and got a statement recorded in their favour. According to the complainant, Bhan Singh, the petitioner herein knowingly identified the said impersonator as Sham Kaur and, thus, these persons had fraudulently got a consenting decree to be passed in favour of Jaswant Singh and Harbans Singh on 6.11.1989. According to the complainant, Sham Kaur never appeared in the Court nor filed any written statement nor gave any statement. It is not necessary for our purpose to go into the other allegations made in the complaint. Part played by the petitioner is stated to be that he identified the impersonator as Sham Kaur. On the basis of this complaint, the abovesaid FIR has been registered and it is stated that the charge sheet has also been filed before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Barnala. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing this FIR and the consequential proceedings on the ground that the offences which the petitioners and other accused are alleged to have committed come within the purview of Sections 467, 468, 471, 193 and 1963 apart from Section 120-B, IPC. The petitioner contends that so far as these offences falling under the above Sections other than Section 120-B, IPC, could be taken cognizance of only on a complaint by the Court concerned. The petitioner contends that in view of the provisions contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C., when the complaint has not been given by the Court before whom certain proceedings had taken place and in relation to which the offences are stated to have been committed, the FIR and the other consequential proceeding are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of this Court in Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) RCR 545 in support of his contention. Of course, Section 195, Cr.P.C., refers to Sections 193, 196, 471, 475, 476 and 463, IPC and it does not specifically mention the offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468, IPC. But the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner supports the contention of the petitioner that Sections 467, 468 and 471, IPC are overlapping and, therefore, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b((ii) are applicable to these offences also by implication.

(3.) SO far as the offence under Section 120-B, IPC, is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the proceedings in respect of the main offence/offences are quashed, the proceedings under Section 120-B alone cannot be continued. I do not wish to express any opinion on this aspect in view of the fact that on some other ground I am coming to the conclusion that the entire FIR and the consequential proceedings will have to be quashed.