CRM-M No. 33103 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM -M No. 33103 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 15 , 2009 Mohinder Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Singh Ghangas, Addl.AG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** Ajay Tewari, J. This is a petition for quashing of order dated 7.10.2008 (Annexure P-10) and supplementary charge sheet dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure P-11) in FIR No. 71 dated 27.5.2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police station Sector 20, Panchkula. The brief facts are that some person applied for a loan from a bank. The matter was marked to the petitioner for verification of title. Admittedly, the petitioner approached the Secretary of the concerned society where the property was situated and admittedly the Secretary issued certificate whereby the ownership of the intending borrower was confirmed. The said Secretary also visited the bank from where the loan was sought and CRM-M No. 33103 of 2008(O&M) 2 duly executed a tripartite agreement with the bank. Later on it transpired that the flat was not owned by the intending borrower and thus the bank had been defrauded. Originally the petitioner was not named in the FIR but later on by way of supplementary charge sheet, charge was framed against him also as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if finding had been that the share certificate and the tripartite agreement were forged, no doubt the petitioner could have been held guilty of connivance, however, the present is a case where false documents were admittedly created by the Secretary of the said society and in fact, that Secretary has also been arraigned as an accused. Learned counsel has argued that as a legal practitioner duty was cast upon the petitioner to visit the premises of the society and verify from the custodian of the official record regarding the status of the property. If such custodian had created a false document the petitioner could in no case be held criminally liable. Learned Additional Advocate General has stated that the supplementary charge sheet was filed due to statement of the bank manager. A perusal of the said statement reveals that general allegations have been made regarding the alleged involvement of the petitioner. In my opinion the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are sound. The present is a case where, to some extent the petitioner himself has been duped by a dishonest custodian of record who has created a false record to the benefit of some person. In the circumstances the inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty having any criminal intent or to have connived with the accused persons. No link has been pointed out which the CRM-M No. 33103 of 2008(O&M) 3 petitioner may have had with the accused persons which could be said to have influenced him to make any fabricated report. Resultantly this petition is allowed. The order dated 7.10.2008 (Annexure P-10) and charge sheet dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure P-11) are quashed qua the petitioner. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 15, 2009 sunita