2009 (10) TMI 657 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant could be said to have committed the offence of forgery, cheating, etc., which are being alleged against her on the basis of which she is facing the prosecution? Held that - Allow the appeal. We expected some explanation and some justification for the arrest as well as for the subsequent investigation of the non-existing crimes. Obviously the whole affidavit, which we have seen very closely, is silent. Again reliance has been made on the earlier Transfer Petitions by this Police Officer also which is totally irrelevant for the present controversy. He has not explained as to how he viewed the same as an offence of forgery, cheating, etc., and for that matter how dishonest intention was deduced by him. Thus this prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and therefore set aside the impugned judgment and quash the Prosecution Case No.3045 of 2004 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
2. Allegations of forgery and false affidavit.
3. Validity of power of attorney and property transactions.
4. Malicious prosecution and abuse of process of law.
5. Role of the investigating officer and propriety of arrest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:
The appellant challenged the High Court's dismissal of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court had earlier refused to interfere, stating that the FIR and collected material were sufficient to proceed.

2. Allegations of Forgery and False Affidavit:
The prosecution was based on an FIR alleging that the appellant filed a false affidavit in civil suits, claiming to have learned about a sale deed on 16.5.2002 and obtained certified copies of revenue records on 27.5.2002. The complainant argued that the appellant had actually received these documents earlier, on 7.5.2002, and altered the dates to 16.5.2002 and 17.5.2002 to circumvent the limitation period.

3. Validity of Power of Attorney and Property Transactions:
The appellant, Parminder Kaur, claimed to be the wife of Col. Hargobind Singh, who had revoked the power of attorney given to the complainant. The appellant's daughter, Amrinder Kaur, also revoked a power of attorney given to the complainant. The appellant filed civil suits to cancel sale deeds executed by the complainant, alleging he had no authority. The complainant, however, claimed adverse possession and valid transactions based on the power of attorney.

4. Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process of Law:
The Supreme Court found the prosecution to be malicious and vengeanceful, initiated by the complainant, who was the appellant's brother-in-law. The Court noted the absence of bona fides and the improper arrest and detention of the appellant, who was about 75 years old. The Court emphasized that the alleged forgery (altering dates) did not constitute a crime as it did not result in any illegal gain or loss.

5. Role of the Investigating Officer and Propriety of Arrest:
The Court criticized the investigating officer for subverting the investigation system and starting a baseless prosecution. The Court found no justification for the appellant's arrest and the subsequent investigation, highlighting the lack of dishonest intention or fraudulent action on the appellant's part.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution, finding it to be an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute any offense under the IPC sections cited. The judgment highlighted the malicious intent behind the prosecution and the improper actions of the investigating officer. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

← Previous Next →