Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DAILYLAW 1412 (DEL)

ZILE SINGH v. STATE OF DELHI

2001-07-11

C K Mahajan, Usha Mehra

body2001
( 1 ) MR. Devinder Kumar, respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sanjay Yadav, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B I. P. C. , inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioners had cheated the respondents by forging will and other documents. ( 2 ) AS per the complaint the grandfather (Munshi Ram) of respondent No. 2 devender Kumar and respondent No. 3, Sanjay Yadav died on 7. 11. 1994 without making any will. Father of respondent No. 2 also died on 23. 1. 1999. The grievance of the complainant was that all the children of late munshi Ram had equal shares in the property but the petitioner Zile Singh forged a Will purported to be executed by Munshi Ram during his life time. Beside Will, petitioner also forged Relinquishment Deed dated 2 4/07/1996. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of investigation parties arrived at a compromise. They accordingly filed this petition seeking quashing of the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2. ( 4 ) STATEMENTS of the complainant and his brother Sanjay Yadav have been recorded separately. Complainant Devender kumar testified that petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are his real paternal uncles (Chachas ). Petitioners No. 5 to 8 are his real paternal aunts (Buas ). Devender Kumar further stated that he never complained to the police that petitioners had forged or fabricated any document. He had only complained that petitioners were depriving him of his right in the ancestral property. Now, since his share in the property has been given and matter has been amicably settled before the panchayat, he does not wish to perpetuate by continuing with his complaint against the petitioners. He wants that the complaint lodged by him bearing FIR No. 238/2000 u/ss. 420/468/471/120-B I. P. C. at police station Dwarka be quashed so that they could live in peace and harmony. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 3, Mr. Sanjay yadav too in his statement stated that the complaint was regarding cheating only because petitioners deprived his brother the share in the property. He further stated that complainant had not filed any compaint regarding forging of documents. The dispute was with regard to-division of the property. Now, it has been settled and they have received their share of the property. Hence, they are not interested to perpetuate the agony of going to police and Court. He further stated that complainant had not filed any compaint regarding forging of documents. The dispute was with regard to-division of the property. Now, it has been settled and they have received their share of the property. Hence, they are not interested to perpetuate the agony of going to police and Court. He wants that FIR No. 238/2000 lodged by respondent No. 2 u/ss. 420/468/471/120b i. P. C. registered at P. S. Dwarka be quashed. ( 6 ) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 320 cr. P. C. provides that the offence u/s. 420 i. P. C. is compoundable. So far as the offence u/ss. 468/471/120-B I. P. C. are concerned, the statements of complainant and his brother respondent No. 3 makes it clear that there was no case of forgery or of fabrication of documents. The dispute was simply that of deprivation of the complainant s share in the ancestral property which has since been settled. The complainant respondent No. 2, his brother respondent No. 3 and petitioners are blood relations and close family members. No useful purpose would be served by dragging them to litigation before police as well as before Court particularly when they have already settled the matter and complainant has also made clear that there was no question of fabrication of documents. Even otherwise if such a case is allowed to continue it is apparent that complainant is going to hostile before the trial Court. Therefore, also no useful purpose would be served by dragging such parties to litigation and perpetuating their agony. ( 7 ) TAKING into consideration the statement of complainant and that of respondent no. 3 and also perusing the record, we are satisfied that it is a fit case where we must exercise our inherent jurisdiction u/s. 482 cr. P. C. and order for the quashing of the FIR no. 238/2000 registered at police station dwarka under Sections 420/468/471/120b ipc and any other proceedings emanating therefrom are also ordered to be dropped. Proceedings quashed.