Resham Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 108 dated 5.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) under Sections 420/ 465/ 468/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Zira District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.6.2009 trial with regard to FIR No. 29 dated 4.5.1998 was pending in the court. Complainant had come to the court at Zira to attend the court proceedings in the said case. Petitioner asked the complainant to sign certain papers. Petitioner himself purchased the stamp papers and got the signatures of the complainant and his wife on certain blank papers/ stamp papers. Petitioner, in connivance with other accused, had thereafter, forged the agreement to sell on the said blank papers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature. Petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell in question dated 11.6.2009 and with a view to pressurize the petitioner in the said civil suit, FIR in question had been lodged by respondent No. 2.

Learned State counsel has submitted that challan has already been presented in this case after thorough investigation and charges have been framed against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the agreement to sell in question had been forged on blank papers on which signatures of the complainant as well as his wife had been taken by the petitioner.

In the present case, allegations of forgery have been levelled against the petitioner qua preparation of the agreement to sell in question. Although, petitioner had filed civil suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell in question but criminal proceedings could also have been initiated by respondent No. 2. The case of the complainant is that agreement to sell in question was a result of forgery. In this regard, petitioner can only be punished in the criminal proceedings initiated against him. In the present case, after presentation of challan, charges have already been framed against the petitioner. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to him during trial. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.