Crl. Misc. 5282 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Crl. Misc. 5282 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.11.2011 Amritpreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih. ... Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State. Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... Augustine George Masih, J.(Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the FIR No.489 dated 7.11.2006 under Section 420/468/471/506 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala (Annexure P-7) and the charge for above offences framed against petitioner vide order dated 10.10.2008 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala (Annexure P-8). It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR was registered against the petitioner alleging various acts to have been committed by the petitioner, firstly, misusing his power of Crl. Misc. 5282 of 2009 2 attorney which had been given to the petitioner, which fact has not been found to be correct on investigation. With regard to the other allegations, none has been found to be correct except that the challan has been presented against the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner had added two lines at the end of para 7 in the civil suit which was filed jointly by the petitioner and the complainant, after the same had been signed by the plaintiff and he had left for Canada where he is permanent resident since 1975. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of document that the land in the suit is in actual physical possession of the petitioner, which is apparent from the revenue record. Therefore, the addition of these two lines in para 7 in the suit, if as alleged and is taken to be correct, would not be factually incorrect and there was no malafide on the part of the petitioner and it would not bring him within the ambit of Section 420 IPC for which the petitioner has been charged. He, accordingly, prays for quashing of the FIR and charge framed against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the joint suit, which was filed by the petitioner and the complainant, was for a declaration to the effect that both of them, who are real brothers, were the owners in possession to the extent of one half shares of the agricultural land, details of which were mentioned in the heading as well as in the prayer clause of the civil suit. Addition of these two lines was done by the petitioner with a malafide intention so that the same could be used at a subsequent stage, wherein it would be taken as an admission on the part of the complainant that the petitioner was in physical possession of Crl. Misc. 5282 of 2009 3 the land in question. He contends that as a matter of fact, on investigation, the investigating agency has come to a conclusion that the two lines have been added in the civil suit by the petitioner after the plaintiff had left for Canada after signing the suit and the suit was filed after a period of two months from the said date. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Perusal of the FIR, civil suit and the order passed by the trial Court and in the light of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the assertion made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused is not to be gone into by the trial Court and it has to consider the challan and the documents, if any, attached thereto which has been presented against the accused. A reading of the FIR discloses the commission of an offence by the petitioner and therefore, prima-facie, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. The offence for which he has been charged by the trial Court on the basis of the challan is made out and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court framing charge against the petitioner dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P-8). In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (Augustine George Masih) Judge 08.11.2011 sk.