Criminal Misc. No.M.46618 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M.46618 of 2007 Date of decision 06.10.2010. Rajender Singh etc ...... Petitioner. versus Smt.Patori ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate for the respondent. K.C.PURI, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) moved by the petitioner for quashing the criminal complaint dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure P-2) and summoning order dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P-3). Briefly stated Smt.Patori filed complaint under Section 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ( in short -IPC) against the present petitioners and two others with the allegations that she purchased 24 kanals of land in village Puthi-Samanian and respondent No.1-Rajender Singh is her real nephew (son of real brother). Respondent No.2 is the Criminal Misc. No.M.46618 of 2007 2 brother-in-law of respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 is the father-in-law of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 is the uncle of respondent No.1 and respondent is an Advocate at Hansi. It has been further alleged that about two years ago, the complainant was in the village Karsindu and was sick due to old age and was not aware of her good or bad. Respondent No.1 is her nephew and she had full faith in him. About two year ago, respondent No.1 came to the complainant in the village Karsindhu. Respondent No.1 told the complainant that Buwaji you always used to say that disputed land is on some higher level and is not irrigated properly and further said that Buwaji you wanted the disputed land to be given to Bhattawale on lease for removing sand. Now, it is not required because SDO has come in the Irrigation Department, who knows him and he will get new outlet with SDO help and this land will be well irrigated. The complainant had full faith in respondent No.1 due to her nephew. He got her thumb impression on blank stamped papers and also bears one stamp and I put my thumb impressions on a paper smaller than a post card. I put my thumb impression where ever respondent No.1 asked during this time Pandit Hari Kishan son of Nanuh Village Karsindhu, Pandit Devi Chand son of Gopala resident of Karsindhu, Bhalla Ram son of Bishamber of Alipura village and my complainant son Sajjan Singh were present, who heard all the discussion. Respondent No.1 had bad intention of cheating from the very beginning towards the complainant and he wanted to grab the land of the complainant. I had so much faith in respondent No.1 that he used to do my all domestic and other writing work etc. when the land was purchased then respondent No.1 Rajender signed for purchaser. Respondent No.1 had bad intention from the Criminal Misc. No.M.46618 of 2007 3 very beginning to grab her 24 kanals land which was not good. About four months ago, the complainant was alone at home that one person came to my house at Karsindhu and said that he has come from Hansi Court and asked me to put thumb impression on some paper and I refused by saying that there was no man at home and he went back. When her son Sajjan came to house I told him all the things. On 4.8.2005, I and my son Sajjan went to Hansi Court and met Shri Deep Chand Sharma Advocate and Shri Vipin Sharma, Advocate and told them about the matter and both the Advocates inquired from the Court and told her that respondent No.1 has filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract against the complainant and the complainant has been asked to do registry of 24 kanals of land in favour of respondent No.1 on the basis of false agreement and receipt of Rs.6lacs., the complainant never went to Hansi with respondent Nos.1 to 4 and neither made any agreement with respondent No.1 to sell 24 kanals of land Puthi-Samaian nor had taken rupees six lacs from respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 with the help of respondent No.2 to 5 had taken the thumb impressions of the complainant on the blank papers to prepare the false agreement and receipt to grab the 24 kanals of land of the complainant and as such respondent No.1 to 5 had done this. Had the complainant any suspicion on respondent No.1 two years back, she would have not put thumb impression on blank papers. That respondent No.1 had bad intention earlier that is why he got the thumb impressions of the complainant on blank papers by telling lie and thereafter respondent Nos.2 to 5 helped him in preparing the agreement and the receipt on those papers. Criminal Misc. No.M.46618 of 2007 4 Complainant never went to Hansi and the agreement and receipt were got prepared by respondent No.5. If the agreement and receipt would have been prepared by the petition writer then the complainant's thumb impressions were required in the register of the petition writer. The trial Court after going through the preliminary evidence summoned the accused under Sections 406, 465 and 120-B of the IPC. The present petitioners have challenged the order of summoning and the complaint itself. Although the number of points have been taken in the petition but the only ground taken by the petitioner, during the course of arguments is that, the Court at Narwana has no jurisdiction as the disputed property does not fall within the jurisdiction of Narwana. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. According to paragraph No.5 of the complaint, the fraud has been committed upon her in village Karsindu by forging the agreement on the pretext of giving the land on lease for removing the sand. So, prima facie it cannot be said that the Court at Narwana has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. So, in view of the above discussion, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE October 06, 2010 sv