IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6011 of 2009 Date of decision: 11th October, 2010 Capt. Raj Mathur … Petitioner Versus Arjun Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a complaint dated 30th May, 2006 (Annexure P-1), in which the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial vide the summoning order dated 24th August, 2007 (Annexure P-3). In the complaint, a specific averment has been made as under: “5. … … … The accused is neither owner, nor in possession of the land in suit, but represented before the complainant as owner of the land having some forged documents in his favour. The accused received a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant illegally and also intentionally and deliberately executed a false and fictitious agreement to sell in favour of complainant having criminal intention to cheat and commit forgery upon the complainant by misusing his power, rank, status and position.” Criminal Misc. No.M-6011 of 2009 The summoning Court considered the preliminary evidence and the documents produced by the complainant. It is a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner at the time, when he executed the agreement to sell (Annexure P-2), was an owner of the property or not? That being so, this Court will not be able to determine the disputed question of fact in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. However, vide order dated 3rd March, 2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had released the petitioner on interim bail. Subsequently, order dated 3rd March, 2009, vide which petitioner was granted interim bail, has been made absolute. Considering the fact that the complaint was filed in the year 2006, personal appearance of the petitioner, before the trial Court, is exempted, subject to his filing an undertaking that he shall cause his appearance as and when required by the trial Court. He shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel, shall be binding upon him. The trial Court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the accused. The trial Court shall conclude the proceedings arising out of the impugned complaint, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 11, 2010 rps 2