CRM No. M 32960 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 32960 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.04.2011 Darshan Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Ms Gagan Geet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 for quashing of FIR No. 163 dated 12.11.2007 under Sections 447, 120-B IPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage and Public Property Act, 1984 (offence added later on under Sections 420/465/467/471/109/201/193 IPC) P S Dhuri, District Sangrur. Facts, in short, are that FIR No. 270 dated 01.11.2007 was registered on the complaint dated 04.10.2007 of Narain Singh and Harjit Singh against Sarpanch Mohinder Singh, Panch Lakhmi Chand, Bhinder Singh and Karamjit Singh sons of Piara Singh under Section 420, 193, 120- CRM No. M 32960 of 2008 2 B IPC at P S City Sangrur. Later on offence under Section 465, 467, 471, 409, 201 IPC and offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage and Public Property Act,1984 were added. Thereafter, FIR No.163 dated 12.11.2007 has been registered on the complaint of Panch Jarnail Singh by P S Dhuri against Mohinder Singh Sarpanch, Panch Lakhmi Chand, Gurmail Singh Panch, Nirbhai Singh, Balwinder Singh sons of Surjit Singh, Surjit Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of Punnawal under Sections 447, 120-B IPC read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage and Public Property Act, 1984 at P S Dhuri, District Sangrur. Later on offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 109, 201, 193 IPC were added. The petitioner is the Panchayat Secretary of Village Punnawal, District Dhuri. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while praying for quashing of FIR No. 163 dated 12.11.2007 under Section 447, 120-B IPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage and Public Property Act, 1984 (offence added under Section 420/465/467/471/109/201/193 IPC) P S Dhuri, District Sangrur has submitted that the said FIR was registered against the petitioner on the same set of facts, on the basis of which, earlier FIR No. 270 dated 01.11.2007 was registered. The fact is that FIR No. 163 dated 12.11.2007 under Section 447, 120-B IPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage and Public Property Act, 1984 (offence added under Section 420/465/467/471/109/201/193 IPC) P S Dhuri, District Sangrur was registered on the statement of Jarnail Singh with respect to one bigah land of Gram Panchayat Punnawal bearing Khasra No. 1623 on the allegation of grabbing of the land by the persons named in the said FIR, whereas, in FIR CRM No. M 32960 of 2008 3 No. 270 dated 01.11.2007 under Section 420, 193, 120-B IPC (added later on under Section 465, 467, 471, 409, 201 IPC and offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage and Public Property Act,1984) at P S City Sangrur was registered with respect to 5 bighas land of Gram Panchayat Punnawal compromised in Khasra No. 1822 on the allegation that some wrong documents were submitted before the DDPO, Sangrur. Thus, in the present case, the land is totally different from the land which is the subject matter of FIR No. 270 dated 01.11.2007. The problem is that the present petitioner is the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Punnawal which passed the resolution vide which, all the rights were conferred upon the Sarpanch Mohinder Singh and Panch Lakhmi Chand. Therefore, the allegation against the present petitioner is that he played a key role in the fraud by preparing and forging some documents i.e. changing and cutting of signatures in the proceeding book of Gram Panchayat of Village Punnawal at page No. 15. On the basis of the said resolution, the petitioner has been made an accused in both the FIRs. No doubt, the petitioner is an accused in both the FIRs on the basis of same resolution, however, the fact remains that the other accused are different in both the said FIRs and khasra number involved too are different. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the trial of both the FIR is ordered to be heard together by the same Court. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI-Nirmal Singh, has pointed out that charges have already been framed in FIR No. 163 dated CRM No. M 32960 of 2008 4 12.11.2007 and two witnesses have also been examined, whereas, in FIR No. 270 dated 01.11.2007, only challan has been filed. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the trial of both the cases i.e. FIR No.163 dated 12.11.2007 and FIR No. 270 dated 01.11.2007 be heard together by the the Court of SDJM, Dhuri, where the trial in FIR No. 163 dated 12.11.2007 is pending. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 20.04.2011 mohan