SARDAR HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions have been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in Trial No. 219(C)/92 arising out of the complaint petition filed by the Opposition Party No. 2 on 20-4-1992, now pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Patna. As both these petitions arise out of the same criminal proceedings, they have been heard analogous.

(2.) The case of the complainant opposite party No. 2 was that accused Gurmukh Singh and Harbhajan Singh approached the complainant to sell six kathas of land appertaining to S.R.P. No. 763 of Khata No. 81 situated at village Rajapur Hasan (now known as Shivpuri) at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per kathas. The land belonged to one Mostt. Harson Kaur Kalasi alias Harsan Kaur wife of Pratap Singh Kalasi of Central Town Jalandhar who had originally purchased the land from Shri Ambika Rai on 25-8-1966. Gurmukh Singh had contended that he was having a power of attorney from the owner Harsanan Kaur Kalasi for selling the land. The complainant was approached as he was dealing with the intending purchasers and in the present case the intending purchasers were Binod Kumar Sinha and Pankaj Kumar Sinha. The purchasers and the complainant wanted to be sure about the real ownership of the land and, as such, an old lady was introduced at the house of the accused-persons to the complainant and the intending purchasers as Harsan Kaur Kalasi and the said old lady had also expressed that she was intending to sell her land and executed a power of attorney in favour of Sardar Gurmukh Singh. A draft agreement was prepared in consultation with the lawyer and Rs. 20,000/- was paid in advance. Then, on the basis of that agreement three sale deeds were executed by Shri Gurmukh Singh as attorney of the alleged owner Harsan Kaur Kalasi on 30-12-1987 on receipt of consideration amounts. When the purchasers went to the land on 11-4-1991 then one Rabindra Kumar Singh came up and claimed that the land has been decreed in his favour in Title Suit No. 62 of 1981 and that Harsan Kaur Kalasi had died long ten years back. Then, on inspection of the records the complainant and the purchasers could know that in view of the decree in title Suit No. 62 of 1981 Execution Case No. 18 of 1987 was filed and Rabindra Kumar Singh was given possession of and that Harsan Kaur Kalasi died before 1982. They also came to know that the said power of attorney of Gurmukh Singh was a forged document executed and registered on 14-1-1985 at Jalandhar and thus the complainant and the purchasers have been cheated for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- On the basis of the complaint and after inquiry was made under Section 202, Cr PC. cognizance qwas taken against all the accused-persons including the petitioners under Sections 419/420/ 465/467/468/ 469/471 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code by the order dated 4-5-1992 and then the case was transferred to the file of Shri Ajit Kumar Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna. A petition was filed by the petitioners and others for their discharge but the same was also rejected vide order dated 9-3-1994. Hence, this petition for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including cognizance and rejection of the discharge petition. Similarly situated another co-accused Narendra Singh came up before this Court in Cr Misc. No. 8760 of 1994 but the same had been rejected by a speaking order by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 16-9-1999.

(3.) The main ground of the petitioner is that whatever the allegations had been made is against Gurmukh Singh was is not petitioner in these cases and unnecessarily all the female members have been brought into focus without making any specific allegations against them. It was further stated that Narendra Singh whose petition had been rejected by a Bench of this Court stands on different footing as he was a signatory in the sale-deed executed in favour of the purchasers. Further contention is that the complainant is not an aggrieved party and, as such, he had no authority to file the complaint when the purchasers had not come up with this complaint petition. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Opposite party that in different stages all the accused-persons conspired to cheat the complainant and purchasers and as the complainant was the negotiator in between the accused-persons and the purchasers, he had got every authority to file this complaint case. I have gone through the allegations made in the complaint petition and its content. Sardar Harbhajan Singh of Cr. Misc. No. 7580/94 was the person who had accompanied the main accused Gurmukh Singh for selling of the land to the complainant and he along with Gurmukh Singh had represented about the ownership of the land and its features and so at the very first initiation this petitioner Sardar Harbhajan Singh was a party in the deal of cheating. The part played by him has been elaborated in the complaint petition itself. Moreover, this petitioner along with lady petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 1295/1995 were present when an impostor lady was set up and identified by them as Harsan Kaur Kalasi when actually Harsan Kaur Kalasi was long dead by that time. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at least the lady petitioners ought to have been kept outside this complaint when there is nothing specific attributed against them. But, it appears from the complaint petition itself that they were not only present but had taken active part in introducing an impostor to the complainant and the intending purchasers. They might not be party to the actual sale-deed executed by Gurmukh Singh but in the process of cheating they were definitely parties. In support of the contention of the petitioners, reliance has been put on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bhag Singh and others V/s. Amar Singh Bhela, 1994 CrLJ 134 wherein quashing petition was allowed in respect of the female members of the main accused when they were unnecessarily being dragged by the advocate complainant. That was a case of causing simple injury on the complainant by the main accused but the old parents of the accused were dragged in the criminal case and, as such, the summoning order against the parents and female folk of the main accused had been quashed. This judgment has got no bearing in the present case. Here there is specific attribution that the petitioners in these cases had conspired with the main accused Gurmukh Singh in cheating the complainant and the purchasers and they have also taken active part in introducing an impostor to the complainant for the purpose of cheating. Thus, that ruling has got no bearing in the present case.