Crl. Misc. No. M-21573 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-21573 of 2008 Date of Decision : October 14, 2011 Ram Kumar Dhankar .... Petitioner Vs. Raj Kishor .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Y. P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two cases i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-21573 of 2008 instituted by Ram Kumar Dhankar and Crl. Misc. No. M-31171 of 2008 instituted by Ranbir Singh because both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of same criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) instituted by respondent Raj Kishor against petitioners of both the cases. The petitioners have also sought quashing of summoning order (Annexure P-2) and all consequent proceedings arising from the said Crl. Misc. No. M-21573 of 2008 2 complaint. The complainant's case is that petitioner Ram Kumar Dhankar – accused no.2, as Attorney of Mahabir Parsad, executed sale deed dated 09.11.2001 of 16 marlas land in favour of the complainant, whereas petitioner Ranbir – accused no.1, as Attorney of Ashok Kumar son of Mahabir Parsad, executed some other sale deeds. It is alleged that vendors had 29 marlas land in all, but both the accused have executed sale deeds of excess land and thereby committed fraud with the complainant. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, vide order dated 11.07.2008 (Annexure P-2), has ordered summoning of both the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 423, 468 and 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. At the time of motion hearing in Crl. Misc. No. M-21573 of 2008, it was contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is purchaser, who was sold land in excess of the share of the seller. However, the present complaint is regarding sale deed executed by the petitioner himself as Attorney of Mahabir Parsad – vendor. Counsel for the respondent also referred to judgment of Civil Court dated 13.06.2007 (Annexure P-4), passed in suit instituted by father of respondent- complainant against both the accused as well as two other vendees, wherein Crl. Misc. No. M-21573 of 2008 3 it has been held that both the accused have sold land in excess of share of the vendors. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no sufficient ground for quashing the impugned criminal complaint or summoning order or consequent proceedings. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed. However, nothing observed herein shall influence the trial Magistrate while finally deciding the impugned criminal complaint. October 14, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE