Criminal Misc. No. M-17914 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17914 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.02.2010 1. Mahinder Singh s/o Bali Singh r/o village Bagthala, District Kurukshetra. 2. Pritam Kaur w/o Mohinder Singh, r/o village Bagthala, District Kurukshetra. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Haryana 2. Balwinder Singh s/o Pala Singh, 3. Lakhwant Singh s/o Pala Singh Both rs/o village Bagthala, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondent no.1-State. Mr. Rajkaran Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. -- SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 59 dated 31.03.2006, under Sections 420, Criminal Misc. No. M-17914 of 2009 2 467, 468, 471, 472, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. Pala Ram, (since deceased), father of respondent nos. 2 and 3, executed an agreement to sell dated 31.10.2001 in respect of the land measuring 8 kanals in favour of Mahinder Singh, petitioner no.1, for a total sale consideration of Rs.4.00 lacs (rupees four lacs), out of which, Rs.1.50 lacs (rupees one lac and fifty thousand) was received by the vendor, as an earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.10.2002. On 15.10.2002, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended with the mutual consent of the parties upto 14.09.2003. It was stated that on 11.11.2002, Pala Ram died. It was further stated that, on the date fixed, the respondents did not appear to execute the sale deed and, ultimately, a civil suit for specific performance was filed. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that it was purely a case of civil nature, which has been converted into a case of criminal nature. He further submitted that report, Annexure P-3 of the Handwriting Expert was obtained, Criminal Misc. No. M-17914 of 2009 3 according to which, the questioned signatures on the agreement to sell, tallied with the standard specimen signatures of one of the signatories. He further submitted that even the thumb impressions on the endorsement of extension of time, were found to be of Pala Ram. He further submitted that the FIR was got registered by respondent nos. 2 and 3 with mala-fide intention, just with a view to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the endorsement of extension of time, on the reverse of the agreement, was not got made by Pala Singh. They further submitted that report, (Annexure P- 3), does not relate to the questioned thumb impression of Pala Singh, appearing on the endorsement of extension. They further submitted that report (Annexure P-3) is only with regard to the questioned signatures of Balwinder Singh, on the agreement. They further submitted that, under these circumstances, the petitioners, forged the endorsement of extension dated 15.10.2002. They further submitted that the petitioners, thus, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They further submitted that it was not a Criminal Misc. No. M-17914 of 2009 4 case of civil nature, which has been converted into a case of criminal nature. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The agreement to sell was allegedly executed by Pala Singh, the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and earnest money was received by him. Originally the date, which was fixed for execution of the sale deed, was not adhered to by the parties. According to the petitioners, with mutual consent of the parties, an endorsement regarding the extension of time was made which was thumb marked by Pala Singh and signed by Balwinder Singh. The report (Annexure P-3) is only with regard to the questioned signatures of Balwinder Singh, respondent no.2, one of the signatories, of the agreement to sell dated 31.10.2001. The report (Annexure P-3) does not speak of the comparison of the thumb impressions of Pala Singh on the extension. Even Lakhwant Singh son of Pala Ram, made a supplementary statement on 27.7.2006, during the course of investigation that on the endorsement of extension of time, the thumb impression was not of his father Pala Singh. At the time of deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is only required to go into the Criminal Misc. No. M-17914 of 2009 5 allegations, contained in the FIR and the documents, attached therewith. The Court is not required to take into consideration the probable plea of defence of the accused. No doubt, a suit for specific performance has already been filed by Mahinder Singh, petitioner no.1. The same gamut of facts can give rise to criminal, as well as civil proceedings. The mere fact that a civil suit for specific performance has been filed by the petitioners, does not mean that a criminal case could not be got registered, against them on the allegations, that the thumb impression of Pala Singh on the endorsement of extension of time was forged by them. The disputed facts can be finally determined during the trial of the case and not in this petition. Under these circumstances, the continuation of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, would not amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court . The same are not liable to be quashed. 7. For the reasons, recorded above, the petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken as expression of mind, on merits of the case. 8. The trial Court shall decide the case, in accordance with the provisions of law, without being influenced by the observations, made, while deciding this petition. Criminal Misc. No. M-17914 of 2009 6 9. The Registry shall send the copies of the order to the concerned Court. February 02, 2010 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge