Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
9. Despite the aforesaid favourable report, ltpal Singh and his brother Gurbinder Singh were repeatedly summoned by the police authorities. In the aforesaid view of the matter, ltpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh again approached the High Court by filing F Criminal Miscellaneous no. 22198-M of 2000. The aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of by the High Court on 10.1.2002. The order passed by the High Court is self- explanatory, and is accordingly being extracted hereunder:- "Allegation of the petitioner is that he is being repeatedly summoned in the office of S.P. (D), Jalandhar, without any jurisdiction. This grievance will be looked into by the S.S.P., Jalandhar on a fresh representation being made by the petitioner and the same will be disposed of within six months of its filing. · Disposed of accordingly." It seems, that the matter was then placed before the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, for consideration. As per the report of the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, the appellant Sarabjit Singh had not been able to establish the execution of any agreement to sell, in his favour. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, in a separate report, reiterated the conclusions which had already been drawn by the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar (in his report, referred to in the foregoing paragraph). c
10. Despite the factual position noticed hereinabove, having concluded its investigation in the matter, the police presented a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before a court of competent jurisdiction, so as to initiate criminal proceedings against ltpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein), Gurbinder Singh, Salamat Masih and others. The process of initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant was assailed by ltpal Singh and others by preferring Criminal Misc. no. 3039-M of 2002. The following order was passed in the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous no. 3039-M of 2002 on 11.2.2002:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented before the trial court in FIR 4 dated January 10, 1998 under Section 420/379, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC. It is further contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place on a parcel of land measuring 61 kanals 3 marlas which had been sole by the owner Salamat Masih to the petitioner and his brother vide two sale deeds dated March 17, 1997. On the other hand the possession of this land was claimed by the complainant (respondent 4 herein) on the basis of an agreement to sell. In the recital of the FIR the complainant stated that "for the balance of 61 kanals 2 marls, I had entered into an agreement to sell with c [2013) 8 S.C.R.
Salamat Masih for digging earth and for purchasing the said land. That the whole of the land measuring 91 kanals 13 marlas is situated in village Dhogri and possession was given to me in 1990." Significantly, no details of the agreement to sell have been mentioned. FIR does not disclose any date. area of land covered by agreement. the rate per kanal or purchase price. the date on which the sale was to be concluded etc., which are all important ingredients of any agreement to sell. In the main petition the petitioner is seeking relief on the basis of report of SP. Annexure P-7 in which on investigation it was found that the petitioner had not committed any offence. On January 23, 2002 notice of m6tion was ordered to be issued for February 28, 2002. In the interim period, proceedings before the trial court on the basis or report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. shall remain stayed." (emphasis is ours) It is therefore apparent, that the trial Court was restrained by the High Court from proceeding against ltpal Singh and others.
11. Simultaneously with the proceedings mentioned hereinabove, ltpal Singh preferred Criminal Miscellaneous no. 32871-M of 2002 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the first information report lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh. After obtaining the response of the G appellant Sarabjit Singh (who was arrayed as respondent no. 4), the High Court, vide its order dated 20.11.2006, quashed the first information report dated 10.1.1998 (lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh with Police Station Adampur in district Jalandhar).
12. The order passed by the High Court dated 20.11.2006, quashing the first information report dated 10.1.1998 referred to above, has been assailed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh before this Court, through the instant criminal appeal.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. Primarily, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the High Court had prematurely, invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the first information report lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh without considering the allegations made by the appellant. It was submitted, that a large number of questions of fact were involved in the allegations contained in the complaint filed by the appellant, specially in view of the factual position adopted by the respondents. The truth or falsity of the matter, according to the learned counsel representing the appellant, could only have emerged after the prosecution was permitted to lead its evidence, It was submitted, that persons against whom allegations have been levelled in the first information report, would then have had ample opportunity to rebut the prosecution evidence and substantiate their innocence. The contention in nutshell was, that in the above situation, justice would have been rendered to both parties. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the High Court was not justified in invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the aforesaid first information report, dated 10.1.1998.
14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. The entire claim of the appellant Sarabjit Singh is based on an agreement to sell. The first information report lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh on 10.1.1998 at Police Station Adampur, district Jalandhar, did not even disclose the date of the aforesaid agreement to sell. According to the A averments made by the appellant Sarabjit Singh before the High Court, and now before this Court, it is alleged that the aforesaid agreement to sell was executed on 13.3.1992. With reference to the abovesaid agreement to sell, the observations made by the High Court in its order dated 11.2.2002 (in B Criminal Miscellaneous no. 3039-M of 2002) are extremely significant. The aforesaid order has been extracted hereinabove. The High Court, while granting interim relief, had taken into consideration the fact, that the appellant Sarabjit Singh had not enclosed a copy of the alleged agreement to sell. c He had given no details of the agreement to sell.
He did not disclose any date of the alleged agreement to sell. He did not even mention the area of land covered by the agreement, or the rate at which the land was agreed to be purchased. The High Court also noticed, that the date on which the sale was to 0 be concluded, besides other similar issues, had also not been disclosed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, in his complaint. While recording that the aforesaid were important ingredients for any agreement to sell, and while noticing that the same had not been disclosed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, the High Court had stayed the proceedings before the trial Court. E Despite such strong observations made by the High Court in its order dated 11.2.2002, and inspite of the fact that the same is the actual basis for all the allegations which the appellant has chosen to level against ltpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein), Gurbrnder Singh, Salamat Masih and others, the said F agreement to sell has still not been placed on the record of the . case, nor have the aforesaid details been furnished.
15. The impugned order passed by the High Court makes a specific mention of the report submitted by the G Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, wherein it was sought fu be concluded, that the first information report had been registered by the appellant Sarabjit Singh only to pressurize ltpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein), Gurbinder Singh, Salamat Masih and others. The aforesaid report was H available on the record of the High Court as annexure P-8. An effective determination of the present controversy, therefore, could have been made only upon a perusal of the aforesaid report. Unfortunately, the aforesaid report has not been placed on the record of the case by the appellant Sarabjit Singh. In the aforesaid view of the matter, an adverse inference is liaole to be drawn against the appellant Sarabjit Singh, and the finding recorded by the High Court on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, that the instant case had been registered by the appellant Sarabjit Singh only to pressurize ltpal Singh, Gurbinder Singh, Salamat Masih and others, has inevitably to be reiterated.
Consequent c upon the disposal of Criminal Miscellaeous no. 22198-M of 2000 vide order dated 10.1.2002 (extracted hereinabove), it seems, that the matter was placed before the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar. The Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar also arrived at a similar conclusion, namely, that the appellant 0 Sarabjit Singh had not been able to produce any material demonstrating the execution of the alleged agreement to sell in his favour. It has been expressly noticed by the High Court in the impugned order dated 20.11.2006, that even the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, in his report, upheld the earlier report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar. Even this report has not been placed on the record of the case. Herein again, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the appellant Sarabjit Singh.
16. From the course of our narration of the factual position as it traversed before different levels of investigation and judicial scrutiny, it emerges that the appellant Sarabjit Singh has not been able to produce any material, on the basis of which he can establish his claim. The aforesaid land was admittedly been sold by Salamat Masih to ltpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh (through two registered sale deeds dated 17.3.1997 and 4.4.1997), i.e. well before the registration of the first information report dated 10.1.1998 by the appellant Sarabjit Singh. This is surely a case of no evidence. It is a case where accusations have been levelled without supporting material. Despite a clear A indication in the order passed by the High Court, such supporting material has still not been made available for perusal of this Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied, that in the absence of any material whatsoever to support the charges levelled by the appellant B Sarabjit Singh in the first information report dated 10.1.1998, the High Court was justified in quashing the said first information report by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are also satisfied, that the conclusions drawn by the Superintendent of Police (City-II), c Jalandhar, and the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, that the police complaint made by the appellant Sarabjit Singh was solely aimed at pressurizing Salamat Masih, ltpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh (besides some others), were fully justified.
17. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no D merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.