TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UDGMENT V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of the High Court, whereby, the High Court has dismissed an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called "Cr.P.C." for short) for quashing the proceedings arising out of charge sheet of case No. 3045 of 2004 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called "IPC" for short), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. 3. This prosecution was initiated on the basis of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 27.2.2004 lodged by one Hargursharan Singh (complainant) against the appellant herein, alleging the offences under aforementioned Sections. As per the said complainant, by respondent no.2 one Amrinder Kaur and her husband Col. Hargobind Singh owned agricultural property, bearing Khata Nos. 40 and 2. They were unable to look after the property and, therefore, appointed Hargursharan Singh, respondent No. 2 herein (the real brother of Col. Hargobind Singh), as their general attorney. Respondent No. 2 herein, by virtue of general power of attorney, sold the aforementi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Singh in the Court of Civil Judge, Rampur. It was claimed that said suits were pending disposal. It was further claimed that the suits were filed by Parminder Kaur (appellant herein) and she supported the same with a false affidavit, in which she stated that she learnt about the sale of agricultural land on 16.5.2002 and immediately, she applied for the certified copy of the Revenue records, which were made available to her on 27.5.2002 and without any delay, she filed the present suit. It was pointed out further that Parminder Kaur (appellant herein) had already applied for certified copy of Revenue Records on 6.5.2002 and the same was made available to her on 7.5.2002. However, to overcome the limitation, she altered the date from 6.5.2002 to 16.5.2002 and 7.5.2002 to 17.5.2002 and 27.5.2002. It was further claimed in the said report that Parminder Kaur had filed Civil Suit No. 267 of 2002 in the capacity of power of attorney on behalf of "Amrinder Hargobind Singh" and in fact, she had no concern with the land in question. It was further pointed out that the real owners of the land had not objected to the sale of land and the sale was being objected to by Parminder Kaur, who wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 40 blank papers. Her contention is that she had nothing to gain by altering the date on the certified copies by adding "1", i.e., making "16" instead of "6" and "17" instead of "7". She further alleged that at the instance of Shri O.P. Gupta, she was dubbed as a hardened criminal and two criminal cases were registered against her. She also points out that she was taken to Rampur from Chandigarh and she was dumped in a dark cell and she remained in the custody for about a week and was granted bail only by the District Judge, Rampur. Her contention is that all these were the schemes conceived by the respondent No. 2 to anyhow put her behind the bars. She points out that in one of the matters, respondent No. 2 Hargursharan Singh has claimed to be the owner on the basis of adverse possession of a land owned by her. She further points out that a mere look at the documents in Civil Suit could show that she was never in Rampur on 27.5.2002 when the plaint was supposed to have been filed. 6. We have seen the papers filed alongwith the Special Leave Petition, viz., Annexure P-3 on Page 42 of the Special Leave Petition's Paper Book, wherein the date for submission of application h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kannungo, Bilaspur and on the same day, filled up the Form for getting certified copies of the copy of the Khatoni and today dated 27.5.2002 after getting the copy of the Khatoni, is filing the present suit without any delay." Again in Para 10, it is suggested that for the first time the cause of action arose on 16.5.2002 due to the execution of forged and void Sale Deed by Manjeet Singh (defendant No. 1 therein) without any right or authority. The plaint is shown to be filed on 27.5.2002. There is a verification also on that date. There is then an affidavit on record, again signed by Parminder Kaur, aged about 65 years, W/o Col. Hargobind Singh, R/o Village Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Rampur, U.P., where all the contentions raised in the plaint are reiterated. We have seen the original affidavits also, which are in the name of Parminder Kaur. Similar such affidavits are to be seen alongwith the Special Leave Petition. 8. In so far as C.S.No.267 of 2002 is concerned, the same was filed by the appellant on behalf of her daughter Amrinder Kaur for whom she was holding power of attorney dated 4.2.2002. Therein she sought setting side of the sale deed dated 3.7.1991 effecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reluctant to interfere in the proceedings at the interlocutory stage. The High Court also went on to record that in the instant case there was no legal bar against the continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of alleged offence and it was not the case where the allegations in the First Information Report even if are taken on the face value did not constitute the offence alleged nor could it be said that even without appreciating the evidence and merely by looking at the complaint or the FIR or the accompanying documents, the offence alleged was not disclosed. It is this verdict of the High Court which is challenged before us. 12. We must note, at this juncture, that the respondent no.2 has filed a huge counter affidavit to the petition filed by the appellant wherein every possible document has been filed including all the documents in the earlier Transfer Petitions, the Revenue proceedings as also the pending criminal proceedings. Based on the assertion of the counter, his basic plea is that he was holding a valid power of attorney for the appellant and it was on the basis of that power that he sold the lands and had also given all the considerations to his brother Col. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the FIR filed by the Bilaspur Police Station. This is a classic example where the concerned Investigating Officer of the Bilaspur Police Station has totally subverted the investigation system and started the prosecution of an old lady. We are also surprised that the said old lady was arrested and had to stay behind the bars for more than a week which fact is not disputed by even the counsel for the State of U.P. We also fail to understand as to how the trial court took cognizance of a non-existent offence mechanically. 14. The only allegation which appears from the First Information Report is that the appellant altered the date from "6.5.2002" to "16.5.2002" and "7.5.2002" to "17.5.2002" and "27.5.2002". It seems from the certified copy that though she had applied for the certified copies of the revenue records on 6.5.2002 and the same were made available to her on 7.5.2002, she altered those dates in the copies filed by her in the court to "16.5.2002" and "17.5.2002" as also "27.5.2002". This is all the forgery which has been complained of by the respondent no.2 in the aforementioned FIR. It is only on this basis that it is suggested that the said civil suits were filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l it does not become a forged document. 15. The first Section of the IPC alleged against the appellant is Section 420 and we are at a complete loss to understand as to how the offence could even be alleged against the appellant on the basis of the so-called forgery. Therefore, that Section is out of question. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC which reads as under: "463. Forgery - Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." We do not find as to how the change brought in by adding figure "1" could cause damage or injury to public or anybody or how it could support the claim or title or how it could cause any person to part with property or for that matter how there could be any intention to commit fraund. 16. The second Section alleged is Section 467 IPC which reads as under: "467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration, or Thirdly - who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration." The first clause suggests that person makes a false document if he - (1) dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document, or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document; and (2) does as above with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed, (a) by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority it was not so made, signed, sealed or executed, or (b) at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; It is not the case here. To attract th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce by the appellant. This Court simply went on the convenience of the parties to reject the transfer petition. In fact during the debate when we put specific questions as to what advantage would the appellant get by aforementioned so- called forgery, the learned counsel for State was unable to answer. The same was the case with the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for respondent no.2. He was also unable to justify the same. All through we found that the respondent no.2 was more keen than necessary and even after the arguments were over, the respondent no.2 has come out with the legal submissions whereby he had firstly withdrawn the power of the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for him. We have also seen those legal submissions. Very interestingly, in those legal submissions, the respondent no.2 says in para 2(a): "the respondent no.2 is the youngest in the whole family and was kept to serve the cause of my brother who is elder to me by 16 years. I was always kept oppressed and depressed and was subjected to mental and physical torture, blackmailing exploitation at the hands of my brother bhabhi - the petitioner herein. My father died in 1985 and after that my brother ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urp and grab the land of five families consisting of 40 members whose future and livelihood has been put at stakes by the petitioner. After the land was sold by her husband and her daughter through their attorney, to common relations of both, the respondent no.2 and the husband of the petitioner, the land prices had gone up by 10 times which led the petitioner to file six cases after a period of 11 years with malafide intention to grab the land." (emphasis supplied) We have deliberately quoted the whole para in order to show that even the respondent no.2 has not been able to show as to how the appellant could be benefited in any manner by changing the dates. We, therefore, find that since there was no question of the appellant gaining anything, she would not have made the aforementioned changes in the document. How the document is changed is not for us to explain. However, whosoever may have changed those documents, the said change did not and could not result in any illegal gains to the appellant or illegal loss to anybody. Such changes were, therefore, innocuous and did not give rise to any offences. 20. We do not go into the merits as we are completely convinced that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
