In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-26525 of 2010 (O&N) Date of decision: 28.10.2010 Surinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala has been dismissed and further for quashing of the order framing charges dated 16.7.2009 and the charge sheet dated 16.7.2009 whereby charges under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code . The facts of the case, in brief, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in para No.2 of the impugned order, read as under:- “Succinctly, the facts leading to the filing of the present revision are that initially, FIR bearing No. 8 Criminal Misc. No.M-26525 of 2010 (O&N) -2- dated 7.1.2006 under Scehme 420, 465, 468, 471, 199 120B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines Patiala was registered at the instance of Raj Mohinder Kaur by way of filing an application dated 17.2.2005, wherein, she had alleged that she was owner of land bearing Khata No. 47/243, Khasra No. 1357/587(5-9) which was bifurcated into plots. One of the said plots bearing No. 37 was having the area of 1200 sq. yards. Out of which, one plot of 500 sq.yards had been sold to Surinder Singh on the basis of false power of attorney, having been procured by Hardev Singh, son of Surjit Singh, resident of village Suhagheri, by impersonation. Enquiry was conducted and an completion of investigation, challan was presented against Hardev Singh, Manjit Singh, Jaswant Singh, Surjit Kaur and Surinder Singh.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no allegation against the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner has been falsely involved in this case by invoking Section 120-B IPC. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the Criminal Misc. No.M-26525 of 2010 (O&N) -3- revision petition filed by the petitioner, in para No.11 of the impugned order has held as under:- “Now coming to the case in hand, it is pertinent to mention that there are clear and specific allegations against the accused about the sale of the plot on the basis of false power of attorney, which had been procured by impersonation. Land in question had been sold to Surinder Singh, the present petitioner. Although, the petitioner claims that he is innocent and has no role to play in the preparation of the false power of attorney but at this stage, suffice to consider the statement of the complainant, who was power of attorney of Raj Mohinder Kaur, as well as statement of Raj Mohinder Kaur got recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC, wherein, the said persons have specifically stated about the connivance of Surinder Singh to whom the plot had been sold. At that stage, suffice to consider the said assertion and to proceed further against the petitioner also. In these circumstances, considering the material on record, prima facie case does exist for framing of charge against the present petitioner also and therefore, the lower court has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner.” Criminal Misc. No.M-26525 of 2010 (O&N) -4- The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any grave miscarriage of justice which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 28, 2010 anita