Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.02.2010 1. Rohtash son of Sukhi Ram;. 2. Om Parkash son of Sh. Mann Singh; both residents of village Dahar, Tehsil Israna, Distt. Panipat. 3. Smt. Rukman d/o Sh. Risala and wife of Sh. Inder, r/o village Khukhrana, presently r/o village Bambheva, Distt. Jind. 4. Smt. Panmeshari d/o Sh. Risala, wife of Sh. Ram Chander, r/o village Bambheva, Distt. Jind. 5. Rattan Lal son of Sh. Amar Nath, r/o H. No. 472/3, Insar Mohalla, Panipat. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Haryana. 2. Dharamvir Mann son of Sh. Duli Chand, r/o village Khukhrana, at present r/o H. No. 29-A, Aggarsain Colony, Panipat. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Nishant Raj, Advocate, for petitioners No. 1 and 2. Mr. J.S. Mor, Advocate, for petitioners No. 3 and 4. Mr. Virender Rathi, Advocate, for petitioner No. 5. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009 2 SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the summoning order dated 09.02.07 (Annexure P5), passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, the complaint/protest petition (Annexure P4), filed by Dharambir Mann, respondent No. 2, in case FIR No. 88, dated 29.04.05, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S. Madlauda, Distt. Panipat, and the order dated 13.02.09 (Annexure P9), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the owners of the land namely Smt. Rukman and Smt. Panmeshwari, entered into an agreement to sell dated 10.11.04, with the complainant, in respect of the land, in dispute, and received a sum of Rs. 6,66,000/- as earnest money, and possession of the land was delivered to him(complainant), but they sold the same to Shamsher Singh and Ram Kishan, vide sale deed dated 07.04.05 in violation of the terms and conditions thereof. It was further stated that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell aforesaid, the approval of Sharmsher Singh and Ram Kishan, near relations of Smt. Rukman and Smt. Parmeshwari was also sought . It was further submitted that all the petitioners, in connivance with each other, forged and fabricated an agreement to sell dated 7.10.2004, in respect of the land, in dispute, to usurp the amount, already received from the Complainant, and, on the basis of thereof, sale deed was executed in favour of Rohtas and Om Parkash petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively. The FIR was registered by the Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009 3 police, but, ultimately cancellation report was submitted. The complainant filed a protest petition, and the trial court rejected the cancellation report, and accepted the protest petition and summoned the accused including the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B I.P.C vide order dated 9.02.2007. Revision petition filed against the order dated 9.02.2007, was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2009. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, have submitted that, it was merely a dispute of civil nature, which has been converted into a dispute of criminal nature. They have further submitted that petitioners No. 3 & 4, did not enter into any agreement to sell the land with the complainant. It was further stated that petitioners No. 1 & 2 purchased the land, in question, on the basis of valid sale deed dated 07.04.05. They have further submitted that, no ante-dated agreement to sell dated 7.10.2004, was created in favour of petitioners No. 1 & 2. It was further submitted that the petitioners, have been unnecessarily harassed and dragged into the criminal litigation. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, have submitted that the agreement to sell dated 10.11.2004,, was executed, by the petitioners, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the land, in dispute. They have further submitted that the stamps of the alleged agreement dated 7.10.2004, were purchased, from Rattan Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009 4 Lal, stamp vendor. They have further submitted that the register of Rattan Lal, stamp vendor, was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for its opinion, and it gave the opinion, that the same (register) had been tampered with. They have further submitted that, as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the forgery of the agreement dated 7.10.2004, was, established. They have further submitted that, it was, thus, not merely a case of civil nature, but the criminal offences, were committed, by the petitioners, by forging the agreement to sell dated 7.10.2004. 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. 70 kanals 16 marlas of land, was owned by Smt. Rukman and Smt. Panmeshwari. They executed an agreement to sell dated 10.11.04, in respect of the said land, in favour of the complainant @ Rs. 7,57,000/- per acre. The sellers received a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/-, as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed, in favour of the complainant, by 31.05.05, after receiving the balance sale consideration. According to the complainant, before the sale of the land, in his favour, Smt. Rukman and Smt. Panmeshwari, sold the land vide sale deed dated 7.04.2005, on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell dated 7.10.2004, in favour of Shamsher Singh and Ram Kishan. The stamp paper of the agreement to sell dated 7.10.2004, was purchased from Rattan Lal stamp vendor, and entry no. 15327 dated 7.10.2004 was made, in the Register. The register of Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009 5 Rattan Lal, stamp vendor, was sent, to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for opinion. The Forensic Science Laboratory, gave the opinion, to the effect, that there had been interpolation and tampering with in respect of the aforesaid entry. The police submitted the cancellation report only, on the ground, that he civil litigation regarding the land, in dispute, was pending. The Courts below, were, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that mere pendency of civil dispute, in respect of the agreements to sell, could not be said to be sufficient, to say that, no criminal case of forgery of the agreement to sell dated 07.10.04 was made out. There are interpolations, in the stamp vendor's register. The allegations that the petitioners, had purchased the stamp paper of the back-date, so as to neutralize the effect of the agreement to sell dated 10.11.04, in favour of the complainant, can only be finally decided, after the parties lead evidence, during the pendency of the trial. Such disputed questions, cannot be determined, at the stage of deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The perusal of the allegations, contained in the complaint, clearly made out a criminal case. Not only this, even Shamsher Singh and Ram Kishan, co-petitioners (non- applicants), also filed a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 09.02.07 and the order dated 13.02.09, but the same was dismissed, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.05.09. An appeal, was filed, against that order, in the Apex Court, which was also dismissed. In this view of the matter, continuation of the complaint, the summoning order dated 09.02.07, Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009 6 and the order dated 13.02.09, shall not amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009, thus, deserves to be dismissed. 7. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-15632 of 2009, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 8. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned. 16.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE