Criminal Misc. No.M-34616 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-34616 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.8.2011 Lakhwinder Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr.R.S.Bal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.8 dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station NRI, Ludhiana City and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the parties was with regard to agreement to sell. Criminal Misc. No.M-34616 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The suit filed by petitioner No.1, on the basis of the agreement to sell in question for specific performance, was decreed in ex parte by the trial Court. The allegations levelled by the father of the complainant, in an application moved before the police that the agreement to sell in question was forged, were found to be false. A criminal complaint filed by the father of the complainant qua allegations that the agreement to sell in question was a forged document was pending trial. Hence, the FIR on the same set of allegations registered in the year 2009 was liable to be quashed. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners were serious in nature. The petitioners had forged the agreement to sell in question and on the basis of the same had got an ex parte decree passed in their favour. The factum of forgery came to light during execution proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, the dispute between the parties relates to agreement to sell dated 6.3.1997. As per the said agreement to sell, Randhir Singh, father of the complainant, had agreed to sell his 1/3rd share out of the suit land to Lakhwinder Singh. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, ` 90,000/- were paid as earnest money by Lakhwinder Singh to Randhir Singh. The balance amount of ` 1,20,000/- out of the sale consideration was to be paid to Jagdev Singh as the suit land had been mortgaged with Criminal Misc. No.M-34616 of 2009 (O&M) 3 him. The sale deed was to be executed by Randhir Singh in favour of the plaintiff as and when called upon to do so. The suit filed by Lakhwinder Singh for specific performance of agreement to sell in question was decreed in ex parte by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2002. Randhir Singh filed a complaint against Lakhwinder Singh and others under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120-B IPC. The case of the complainant, in brief, was that the agreement to sell in question dated 6.3.1997 was forged by all the accused in connivance with each other. Probably the complainant was not in India on the said date. The said complaint (Annexure P-5) was filed in February, 2005. Vide order dated 20.5.2006, trial Court ordered the summoning of all the accused to face the trial for an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120-B IPC. Admittedly, the petitioners are facing the trial in the said complaint. In April, 2007, Randhir Singh moved a complaint to the police qua forgery of the agreement to sell in question. However, no action was taken on the said complaint by the police. Now the son of the complainant has lodged the FIR in question on the same allegations. Admittedly, the petitioners are already facing the criminal proceedings in the complaint case on the allegations that they had forged the agreement to sell in question. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed as the petitioners are already facing criminal proceedings in a complaint filed by Randhir Singh. Now the son of the complainant wants the petitioners to face another trial on the same allegations. Criminal Misc. No.M-34616 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 8 dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC registered at Police Station NRI, Ludhiana City and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 30, 2011 anita