Crl.Misc.No.M-21385 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: July 28, 2010. Crl.Misc.No.M-21385 of 2010 (O&M). Sanjay Sharma .. Petitioner VERSUS Harbhajan Singh. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner challenges the charges under Sections 423, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, framed against him on the basis of a complaint filed by Harbhajan Singh respondent. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that it was Fajja Singh who had allegedly entered into an agreement of sale with Harbhajan Singh complainant on 13.02.1995 and also entered into an agreement of sale with Tara Singh dated 29.12.1994. . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-21385 of 2010 The suit filed by complainant Harbhajan Singh dated 19.12.1995 seems to have been decreed on the basis of the agreement of sake executed in his favour with an observation that agreement dated 29.12.1994, alleged to have been executed by Fajja Singh in favour of Tara Singhy is a fictitious document. The petitioner is an attesting witness to the agreement dated 29.12.1994. He was neither a party before the civil Court nor it is established that he actually signed the agreement or had any common intention with Fajja Singh or that he connived with Fajja Singh to prejudice the rights of the complainant Harbhajan Singh. It is claimed that there is no evidence against the petitioner and that he has unnecessary been arrayed as an accused especially when he is not beneficiary in any manner. No forged document has been prepared by him. Even if the allegations are proved to be correct, the petitioner cannot be deemed to have committed any offence even if his name appears as an attesting witness on an agreement of sale dated 21.12.1994. The civil rights of Harbhajan Singh and Tara Singh on the basis of agreement of sale in favour of Fajja Singh can be determined by the Civil Court and liability if any accruing from the agreements in their favour would be of civil nature. I have considered the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in context to the facts mentioned above and I am of the opinion that prima facie, the involvement of the petitioner in the production of fabricated document is a debatable point and is doubtful but unless and until the entire material in the form of . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-21385 of 2010 evidence at preliminary stage or at the stage of preliminary evidence is minutely considered it will not be appropriate to discharge the petitioner on the ground that no offence is made out or that he did not connive with his co-accused Tara Singh to defeat the rights of complainant. Without entering into the disputed question of fact and appreciation of preliminary evidence or pre-charge evidence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction that in case the petitioners move an application for exemption from personal appearance the same would be allowed by the trial Court subject to any condition imposed by the trial Court. It will be open to the petitioner to be represented through counsel and participate in the cross-examination of witnesses on his behalf. The evidence can be recorded as per the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. in his absence. Granting the above said limited relief to the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on merits, this petition is dismissed, at this stage. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 28, 2010. rka . . . 3