Criminal Revision No. 1810 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1810 of 2006 Date of decision:- 28.7.2008 Mati Singh and another ...Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2. RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioner is in revision before this Court against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ropar, whereby the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar was reversed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint filed by the respondents being meritless whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed summoning of the petitioners to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. The only contention by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute in the present case is civil in nature for which civil litigation was already pending and infact the case set up by the petitioners was upheld by the learned Civil Judge against which respondents are in appeal before the learned District Judge. Stating the facts in brief, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 sold land measuring 6 marlas 3 sarsahi Criminal Revision No. 1810 of 2006 2 vide registered sale deed dated 17.12.1999. The parties to the dispute are co-sharers in joint khata of land. On the plea set up by the respondents that infact the petitioner no. 1 could only sell share to the extent of 1/6th whereas he sold 1/3rd share, a civil suit was filed challenging the sale deed dated 17.12.1999 executed by petitioner no.1 in the favour of petitioner no.2 and others. Suit was filed on 11.1.2000. After filing of the suit, a complaint was filed by respondent no.2 against the petitioners on 29.10.2001 under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 474 read with Section 120B IPC with the allegations that it was on account of cheating and forgery that the petitioner no. 1 had sold land much more than his share by way of sale deed dated 17.12.1999. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint finding the matter in dispute to be civil in nature, however, the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was reversed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar and the petitioners were directed to be summoned. It is further submitted that they are directed to be summoned without there being any justification for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during the pendency of the present petition before this Court, civil suit filed by respondent no.2 has already been decided by the Civil court on January 3, 2008 whereby the sale deed dated 17.12.1999 was upheld, meaning thereby the stand of the petitioner no.1 was vindicated. With reference to above factual matrix the submission is that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. Versus Special Judicial Magistrate 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 761, State of Madhya Pradesh versus Mohan Lal Soni 2000 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452 and Shanti Kumar Panda versus Shakuntala Devi 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 881. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand while admitting the factual position that the civil suit filed for challenging the sale deed has been dismissed, submitted that as the appeal filed against the judgment was still pending, no final opinion can be expressed at this stage as to whether the offence committed by the petitioners was made out or not. The submission is that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly legal and deserves to be upheld. Reliance has Criminal Revision No. 1810 of 2006 3 been placed upon Vitoori Pradeeep Kumar versus Kaisula Dharmaiah 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 813. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents on record especially the judgment and decree dated January 3, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ropar in a suit filed by respondent no.2 against the petitioners upholding the sale deed dated 17.12.1999, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge is not in conformity with law and deserves to be set aside. On the face of it the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. The argument of respondent No.2 is that petitioner no.1 was not entitled to sell particular area of land out of khewat whereas Civil court found that the area of land sold by the petitioner no.1 vide sale deed dated 17.12.1999 is perfectly valid. In fact the civil suit was filed much prior to the filing of the complaint i.e. 11.1.2000 whereas the complaint came to be filed only on 29.10.2001. In the complaint also the facts stated are similar to what was stated in the civil suit. It is claimed that the sale deed dated 17.12.1999 is illegal, null and void. Ones the civil litigation regarding the sale deed was already pending and more so has already been decided in favour of the petitioners/accused, in my opinion continuation of prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offence would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, summoning the petitioner is quashed. The petition is disposed of. July 28 , 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE