IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.286 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 26.05.2008 Dr.Sumit Sofat ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Navjeet Singh, Advocate vs. N.P.S.Aulakh and others ....Respondent(s) through Shri Mukesh Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Shri P.S.Bajwa, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) Shri Mukesh Berry, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has filed reply/affidavit of respondents No.6 and 8. In his reply/affidavit, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, has come up with the stand that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce all the documents and on consideration thereof, “the allegation of forgery could not be proved and all the documents were found to be genuine. Since forgery could not be proved, the other sections i.e. 465/467/468/471 IPC were deleted from the array of the sections.” The Senior Superintendent of Police, however, has further averred that after investigation “the allegations of 420/120-B IPC stood duly proved as it came on record that the petitioner got the sale deed executed in his favour from his wife on the strength of the General Power C.O.C.P. No.286 of 2008 -2- of Attorney given by complainant in favour of Sumita Bedi, despite having the knowledge about the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney by the Complainant.........” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the allegations levelled by the Senior Superintendent of Police against the petitioner as reproduced above and keeping in view the fact that the directions issued by this Court have been complied with and necessary documents produced by the petitioner have also been taken into consideration, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances before an appropriate Forum, if so required or advised. May 26, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE