Surat Singh and anr. vs Dalwinder Singh and anr.

S. S. Grewal, J.—This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of complaint, Annexure P.3 as well as criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the trial Court. In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this case are :

That Dalwinder Singh, respondent No. 1 agreed to sell his land measuring 11 K 3 M in favour of respondent No. 3 vide agreement dated 1371985 for a sale consideration of Rs. 39,000/ Respondent No. 1 received Rs. 34,000/ out of the said sale consideration. On 11.3.1986, both respondents No. 1 and 3 came to Amloh for getting the Sale Dead. executed.

They purchased stamp papers worth Rs. 4,800/. The sale deed was scribed by Som Nath, Deed Writer and was signed by respondent No. 1 in taken of its correctness. Respondent No. 1 then slipped away and did not appear before re the SubRegistrar for registration of the Sale Deed. Subsequently, Dalwinder Singh appealed before the SubRegistrar, and stated that he did not wish to get the sale deed registered. This matter was referred to Registrar, Patiala, who vide has order dated 20.6.1986 directed that the sale dead be registered. Consequently, the said sale deed was duly registered on 1771986. In mutation proceedings, Dalwinder Singh entered into a compromise, admitted the title of Gora Lal, and delivered physical possession of the land at the time, when said mutation was sanctioned on 891986. The present complaint was filed on 2531987. Therein the allegations were made that Gora Lal including the present petitioners having common intention with each other with a view to cause illegal loss to the complainant, forged an agreement, purporting to be an agreement to sell the land in question. After recording preliminary evidence, both the petitioners as well as Gora Lal, respondent No. 3 were summoned as accused. After recording evidence, charge under Sec. 467 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioners and their coaccused Gora Lal.

Counsel for the parties were heard it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the complainant while appearing as his own witness has not said a word concerning the allegations in the complainant that the forgery in respect of agreement of Sale was committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused.

On behalf of Dalwinder Singh, respondent No. 1 it was submitted that since specific allegations are there in the complaint itself that the present petitioners were also involved in committing a forgery. The facts patent on the record are that there is no legal evidence on the file for framing charge under Section 467 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, inasmuch as the complainant has not said a word in this regard in his statement. Mere allegation in the complaint against the present petitioners cannot be considered sufficient material for framing charge against the petitioners under Section 461 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Another important aspect of the case is that Civil suit with regard to the same subject matter i e sale, as well as agreement for sale in question is pending between the parties. The question whether the agreement, for sale has been forged, obviously is one of the main points involved in that suit. In this view of the matter also proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted to be continued.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 produced copy of order passed by Justice BajajJ. on 731989 in Criminal Misc. No 1734 M. of 1984 whereby petition of Gora Lal under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the same proceedings was dismissed. Perusal of the said order shows that the same was not passed on merits or after discussing matters raised before the said Court. The said petition was dismissed by a nonspeaking order. As such, the said order cannot be considered as precedent as far as the case of the present petitioners is concerned.

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint as well as the criminal proceedings including the charge framed against the petitioners alone are directed to be quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed.