Kanwarjit Singh vs Pritam Kaur

J.B. Garg, J.

Kanwarjit Singh S/o Baba Bhagat Singh R/o Abdulapur, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala has moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the summoning order dated 20.7.1993 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala in a complaint instituted by Pritam Kaur for offences under Sections 419/420/468/469/467/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner has alleged that plot bearing No. 119/164 Khasra No. 223/39 situated in village Abdulapur was purchased by him by means of registered sale deed dated 6.5.1992 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac and Sadhu Ram S/o Dhania Ram acted as Special Attorney of the vendor and that the petitioner has now been implicated in a false case on account of political rivalry; that Pritam Kaurrespondent No. 1 has already filed civil suit against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

In reply filed by Pritam Kaur respondent No. 1, it has been averred that she purchased this plot in 1963 and also constructed a boundary wall together with foundation of two shops. When the answering respondent had declined to sell the plot, it was thereafter that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy and got a fictitious and forged Power of Attorney prepared in the name of one Sadhu Ram on 27.4.1992 and immediately on its basis got sale deed executed in his favour on 4.5.1992 and registered on 6.5.1992 and even according to the sale deed the payment of alleged price of Rs. 1 lac was never made before the Sub Registrar; that all this was done to deprive respondent No. 1 of her valuable property; that there was no occasion for respondent No. 1, an educated lady to execute power of attorney in favour of uneducated and unknown third person Sadhu Ram; that the alleged power of attorney regarding the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was a fraud on the answering respondent in connivance with the other corespondents and that the essential requirement of offences enumerated above, were fulfilled.

During the course of argument, it has transpired that the complaint is at a preliminary stage. A copy of the summoning order dated 20.7.1993 placed on the record shows that it is a speaking one. Where genuineness of forgery of an agreement was under consideration, it was observed in Vijay Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reports 220 that the criminal proceedings could also continue. In Surjan Singh and others v. Darshan Lal and another, 1991(2) RCR 63 where complaint was at the stage of summoning, the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were disliked.

Thus, conclusion is that the interference by this Court at the preliminary stage is not called for and the present petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the various pleas which may be admissible to the petitioner in the trial Court.