IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 32635 of 2010 Date of decision : 01.12.2011 Ranjit Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners seek quashing of complaint No. 206 dated 12.06.2007 registered against them under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 380, 506 and 120-B IPC. The complainant/respondent No. 2 has filed this complaint against Tarjit Kaur, Navjeet Kaur, Prabhdeep Singh, Ranjit Singh, Lachhman Dass and Jang Bahadur for commission of these offences. Stating that respondent No. 2 is resident of Nikki Mandi Patti and is a grand son of Jagjit Singh, he has disclosed that Jagjit Singh has seven children and during his life time had executed a Will leaving ½ share of his estate to Jasbir Singh father of respondent No. 2. Remaining ½ share was equally divided between other sons namely Amanpreet Singh and Kamalpreet Singh. Two rooms and kitchen were given to Kulbir Singh on first floor and two feet wide passage was given for stairs but no accommodation was given to him on the ground floor on the Crl. Misc. No. M- 32635 of 2010 -2- condition that either Kulbir Singh or his legal heir will not create any dispute with Amarpreet Singh and Kamalpreet Singh. It is stated that Kulbir Singh in connivance with the revenue authorities got mutated 1/3rd share of the house in his name which is against the terms and conditions of the Will. After the death of Kulbir Singh, his legal heirs namely Tarjit Kaur, Prabhdeep Singh and Navjeet Kaur got the mutation entered in their names also in connivance with the revenue authorities. The civil suit has also been filed. It is stated that they had, accordingly, played fraud. On the basis of this, Tarjit Kaur Navjeet Kaur and Prabhdeep Singh transferred 1/3rd share in the name of petitioner No. 1 vide registered sale deed. This sale deed was contested by petitioners No. 2 and 3. On this basis, the complaint has been filed against them for which they stand summoned. Counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no fault on the part of petitioners No. 1 and 2. There is serious dispute in regard to factual position and the right of the person from whom the property is purchased. Whether they have committed any offence or not, would be seen by the trial Court. On the basis of affidavit filed with petition, the disputed issues cannot be decided while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. December 01, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE