Crl.Misc. No.M-34465 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-34465 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2011 Dr.Pavittar Kumar Bawa ...........Petitioner Versus Sukhdev Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent. --- Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of complaint No. 147 dated 23.9.2003 titled as Sukhdev Singh vs. Dr.Pavittar Singh and others (Annexure P1) under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') and summoning order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P2) and order dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure P6) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant has filed the complaint alleging therein that he had purchased the motor cycle in question from Paramjit Singh. The Crl.Misc. No.M-34465 of 2010 (O&M) 2 accused in connivance with each other had got the motor cycle in question transferred in the name of the petitioner. The motor cycle in question had not been sold by Paramjit Singh to the petitioner. The complainant alleged that a fraud has been committed by all the accused in connivance with each other. Petitioner had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-complainant-Sukhdev Singh to hand over the possession of the motor cycle to him. The said suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2007. The appeal filed by the complainant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the First appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2007. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Contents of the Complaint (Annexure P1) read as under:- "1.That accused Dr.Pavittar Kumar Bawa have its own clinic in the name of Bawa Clinic situated in Chowk Moni, Amritsar. 2.That I was getting training of dressing and medicines from accused of Baba Clinic. For the last about 10/12 years I have good relations with the accused. 3. That I had purchased Motorcycle Royal Enfield No. PBA- 4554 from Paramjit Singh, son of Puran Singh for an consideration amount of Rs.21,000/- on 27.8.02 against proper receipt along with affidavit dated 11.9.02 and had Crl.Misc. No.M-34465 of 2010 (O&M) 3 signed the papers for transferring the motorcycle. 4. That the affidavit given to me by Paramjit Singh, that affidavit and registration certificate of Motorcycle was placed in motorcycle and I had parked the motorcycle at Baba Clinic. Both the above documents had been stolen by Dr.Pavittar Kumar Bawa from my motorcycle. 5. That the accused Dr.Pavittar Kumar Bawa with connivance of other accused namely Rajesh Kumar and D.S.Raja by affixing fake signatures of Paramjit Singh got transferred my motorcycle No.PBA-4754 from the office of DTO Amritsar, which I had not transferred in my name. 6. That Paramjit Singh had never sold motorcycle to accused Doctor Pavittar Kumar Bawa nor received any amount for the motorcycle. 7. That I have not received any amount of above motorcycle No.PBA-4554 nor sold the motorcycle and neither Paramjit Singh had given any signed paper to accused Pavittar Kumar. In this manner, the accused had committed fraud with me and the accused with connivance of each other prepared all the papers and transferred my motorcycle in his name from DTO Office, Amritsar, by affixing fake signatures of Paramjit Singh and for grabbing motorcycle have committed offence under Sections 420,467, 468” The case of the complainant was that a fraud had been played upon him by all the accused in connivance with each other by preparing forged documents and fake signatures of Paramjit Singh while getting the motorcycle in question transferred in the name of the Crl.Misc. No.M-34465 of 2010 (O&M) 4 petitioner. Petitioner had filed the civil suit bearing No. 280 of 2003 on 11.8.2003 seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the possession of the motor cycle in question to him. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Civil Court in the said suit (Annexure P3) reveals that the defendant-complainant had failed to lead any evidence that the documents proved on record by the petitioner were forged. Consequently, the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2007. The appeal filed by the complainant-defendant was dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2007. In para 13 of the judgment, the District Judge held as under:- “The plaintiff has produced on the file agreement Ex.P1, vide which the motor cycle in question has been sold to defendant/appellant. The plaintiff has also produced affidavit executed by Sukhdev Singh in his favour. The consideration has been stated to be paid through cheque. The mere fact that the date of the cheque has been mentioned as 27.5.2003 does not affect the merits of the case. It seems to be a mere clerical error. The said amount has been withdrawn by the defendant/appellant from the Bank and that fact has not been disputed by the defendant/appellant himself. The stand taken by the defendant/appellant to the effect that the said amount has been paid to the plaintiff is not borne out on the record except the bald statement made by the defendant. So far as the documents Ex.PY, Ex.DX and Mark-A etc. are concerned, these documents rather strengthen the case of Crl.Misc. No.M-34465 of 2010 (O&M) 5 the plaintiff. The intention of the plaintiff from the very beginning was to purchase the motor cycle from the original owner. The defendant has failed to prove that the documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are forged documents.” Thus, it was held in the civil litigation that the petitioner was entitled for possession of the motorcycle in question being its owner. The plea taken by the respondent-complainant that the documents qua ownership of the motorcycle in question were forged, could not be established by him in the civil proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint No,147 dated 23.9.1993 (Annexure P1) , under Sections 420,467,468,471, 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto including summoning order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P2) and order dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure P6) are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2011 arya