CRM No.M-36890 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-36890 of 2010 Date of decision:21.09.2011 Gurmeet Kaur & another ......Petitioners Versus Harbant Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.I.P.Atre, Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr.Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for respondent. ****** Augustine George Masih J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing criminal complaint No.11 dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure P1) filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing order dated 17.08.2010 (Annexure P8) vide which the petitioners have been summoned by the trial Court. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the person in whose favour the agreement to sell has been entered into qua the property in question. He further contends that the petitioner has lost Rs.1 lac which were paid to Kuldeep Singh son of Harbant Singh @ Harmant Singh (complainant). He states that the petitioner, not being the beneficiary CRM No.M-36890 of 2010 2 of the agreement, cannot be made to suffer the protracted trial in the complaint which has been filed by the respondent. He contends that actually the purchaser of the property has the right to file a complaint and not the complainant who is only holding the lease rights of the property. He, therefore, contends that the complaint deserves to be quashed. His further contention is that the purchaser, Jaskaran Singh has also initiated criminal case against him vide FIR No.148 of 2007, Police Station Kurali and trial is under progress before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. He contends that the earlier agreement to sell was entered into between the petitioners and the complainant and the money was handed over to the son of the complainant. In fact, the petitioners have lost Rs.1 lac which was given as advance at the time of agreement to sell to the owner of the plot, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be put to any disadvantage and made liable twice over for an offence which was not committed by them. I have gone through the complaint which has been filed by the respondent where it is specifically stated that the complainant is not the owner of the plot/land in question; he is only a lessee of the said land and the land is being sought to be sold on the basis of an agreement to sell which has not been thumb marked or executed by the complainant. The document (agreement to sell) is a forged document wherein the name of the complainant has been utilized and some other person has thumb marked it which would make him liable for it. In view of this, the offence for which the CRM No.M-36890 of 2010 3 complaint has been filed by the petitioners stands prima facie made out. It is not the case of the petitioners that the money was given to the complainant. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioners have no feet to stand on as these submissions do not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. In any case, these are facts which would require producton of evidence for decision on the dispute which will be better appreciated by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the prayer for quashing of the complaint cannot be accepted. As regards the challenge to the order dated 17.08.2010(Annexure P8), no fault can be found in the said order as the petitioners have been summoned on the basis of the complaint and the preliminary evidence led by the complainant before the Court which is a detailed one requiring not interference by this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition which stands dismissed. 21.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) Sailesh JUDGE