Mahla Ram vs Hawa Singh

J.S. Sekhon, J.

Mahla Ram accused petitioner has moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of order dated 121.1990 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind summoning the petitioner to face trial for the offence under Sections 468/471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as the order dated 2481990 of the learned Additional Sessions, Jind dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order. In the alternative it is prayed that criminal Court proceedings be stayed till the disposal of civil suit pending between the parties regarding the same dispute. It is, inter alia maintained that there is no evidence worth the name to justify the summoning of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The respondent did not file any return in spite of opportunities granted to him.

The brief resume of relevant facts figuring in the complaint Annexure P1 is that Hawa Singh complaint is the partner of firm M/s. Arjan Singh Hawa Singh. Similarly, Mahla Ram accusedpetitioner is also a partner in the said firm. This firm purchased plot No. 12 of Scheme No. 4 (New Kath Mandi Jind) from the Improvement Trust, Jind and paid a sum of Rs. 5500/ on 31121976 and rest of the amount was diposited by the firm on 25101982. But Mahla Ram along with his coaccused Raghbir Singh conspired to grab this plot by forging the signatures of Hawa Singh complainant and thumb impression of Arjan Singh on the application for transferring the ownership of the said plot by the Municipal Committee in the name of Nahar Singh son of Mahla Ram accused petitioner. It is further averred that Mahla Ram accused petitioner is the active partner of firm and kept the transfer of the plot in the name of aforesaid Nahar Singh as a guarded secret. It is also maintained that no notice of the alleged transfer of the plot was given to the complainant. It is further elaborated in para 6 of the complaint that Hawa Singh, complainant and Arjan Singh had to file a civil suit for rendition of accounts of that firm in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Jind on 241988 and the Court has appointed a receiver to take possession of the shop in dispute.

It is too early to go into the merits of the case and come to the conclusion that even if the entire prosecution evidence is taken to be true, no case for the abovereferred offences is made out. On the other hand, the case regarding forging the thumb impression/signatures of Arjan Singh and Hawa Singh is a matter of evidence. Anyhow, since the same controversy is under scrutiny of the civil Court and the findings of the civil Court, are binding on the criminal Court, it is considered a fit case where further proceedings in the complaint (Annexure PI) titled as `Hawa Singh v. Mahla Ram and another pending before the criminal Court at Jind be stayed till the final disposal of the civil suit between the parties. It is ordered accordingly by partly accepting this petition.