Crl. Misc. No.M-33168 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-33168 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 23, 2010 Dr. Pal Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. Vinod Kumar …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vinod Kumar respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that he had purchased a shop measuring 8 ft. x 36 ft. on the Railway Road, Krishna Colony on June 30, 2003 from Pawan Kumar, petitioner no.2. Petitioner No.2 has again sold the same shop on December 9, 2004 to petitioner No.1 Dr.Pal Singh and that petitioner No.1 had made an attempt to take forcible possession of the shop on the basis of the Crl. Misc. No.M-33168 of 2009 [2] fabricated subsequent sale deed dated December 9, 2004. The complainant had been cheated. Petitioners have been summoned vide summoning order dated September 3, 2009 annexure P-2. The complainant Vinod Kumar had also filed a suit for injunction annexure P-3 against the petitioners by impleading them defendants. The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed vide judgment dated January 29, 2010 and the respondent- complainant has been held to be owner of the shop vide sale deed dated June 30, 2003 holding that the sale deed dated December 4, 2010 in favour of Pal Singh, petitioner No.1 as null and void. I have gone through the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent. Counsel for the respondent is not aware whether any appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Civil Court. Notice of motion was got issued on December 15, 2009 on the ground that the shop sold by the petitioner No.2 to respondent was different than that sold subsequently to petitioner No.1. In view of the judgment of the civil Court the said plea seems to be ill-founded. However, the petitioners will be able to impeach the credibility of the complainant at the time of pre-charge evidence and seek acquittal in case they are able to establish that the complaint is false or that the property sold to petitioner No.1 by petitioner No.2 is different from the one which was sold to complainant- Vinod Kumar. Crl. Misc. No.M-33168 of 2009 [3] In view of the above circumstances, no ground is made out for setting aside the summoning order. Dismissed. August 23, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE