HAZURA SINGH Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing complaint dated 10-6-1988 and the First Information Report entered on the basis thereof. The factual background is that one Ujagar Singh was owner of 12-1/2, acres of land in Bir Babran, District Hisar, which was allotted to him by the State Government on account of his being a political sufferer. Nirmal Singh is his nephew. Ujagar Singh was not able to manage the said land and it was, therefore, being looked after by his nephew Nirmal Singh. Ujagar Singh executed a registered power of attorney in favour of his said nephew on 13-7-1986. Nirmal Singh was cultivating the land on behalf of his uncle and was residing therein. With the intention of grabbing that land, Charan Singh is alleged to have forged a power of attorney of Ujagar Singh, in his own favour in connivance with Hazura Singh and two witnesses. He got the same registered from the Sub-Registrar, Amritsar. It is alleged that someone impersonated for Ujagar Singh and the power of attorney in favour of Charan Singh was bogus, fictitious and a forged document inter alia, the said power of attorney authorised Charan Singh to sell or transfer the land of Ujagar Singh. Charan Singh suffered a decree with regard to title of the land in favour of Hazura Singh on 14-3-1987 in Civil Suit No 276-C of 1987. Ujagar Singh instituted a suit challenging the said decree on 24-5-1988 against Hazura Singh, Charan Singh and others. Another suit was filed by Hazura Singh on 26-5-1988 with regard. to the said land. Nirmal Singh, nephew of Ujagar Singh, filed a complaint dated 10-6-1988 alleging offences under sections 420, 463, 464, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was sent for investigation to the police under section 156(3) of the Code. The present FIR was registered by the police on the basis thereof. Petitioner Hazura Singh seeks quashing of the FIR.

(2.) EVEN though the petition was moved for quashing the FIR, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the time of hearing that the petitioner would be satisfied if instead of quashing the FIR proceedings in the criminal case were stayed till decision of the question by the civil Court.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the private respondent is that once the case was registered, it was the prerogative of the police to investigate the same according to law and the Court should not interfere in the course of investigation by staying the proceedings. He pointed out that investigation was primarily concerned with collecting evidence and if this duty was not performed it this stage, the evidence may be irretrievably lost with the passage of time. Learned counsel also contended that as between civil and criminal cases priority ought to be given to criminal cases as civil cases continued to drag on for several years.