CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.38079 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 16, 2011 Surinder Mohan .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of a complaint dated 20.10.2003 titled Shiv Kumar Vs. Surinder Mohan and the summoning order, summoning the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The primary ground of challenge is the finding of the civil court on same or somewhat similar issues, which, according to the counsel would be enough to end this criminal prosecution. This a case of dispute between two brothers. Their mother, Satyawati, was owner in possession of one house CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.38079 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: No.272 situated at Loha Mandi, Amritsar. Her husband expired on 1.12.1985. Satyawati had 4 sons and 4 daughters. The elder son, Prem Nath, had expired whereas Shiv Kumar, Parmod Kumar and Surinder Mohan are alive. Out of the four daughters, Kamla Mehra and Tripta Khanna have expired whereas Dheeraj and Promila Dhir are alive. During her life time, Satyawati had purchased one house bearing No.2857 and 2859 at Loha Mandi, Amritsar. She executed a will on 9.10.1998 duly registered in the Sub Registrar's office on 26.10.1998. Satyawati expired on 4.1.2000. In the upper portion of the said house, complainant's sister, namely, Dheeraj, was residing whereas the ground portion was occupied by Surinder Mohan. It is alleged that Satyawati had disinherited Surinder Mohan (petitioner) and publication to this effect was made. The petitioner is stated to be a cunning and clever person, who is expert in forging documents. It is alleged that petitioner (Surinder Mohan) has forged a general power of attorney dated 18.8.1999 by posting an old photograph of his mother and got the same registered in the Sub Registrar's office on 19.8.1999. On the basis of this power of attorney, he has executed a sale deed qua the above-mentioned house in favour of his wife, fraudulently mentioning the name of her father instead of disclosing his own name, being the husband of the lady. CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.38079 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: Civil suit in this regard was also filed against the petitioner. Signatures on the power of attorney were got compared with the standard signatures of Satyawati and were found to be forged by the handwriting expert. It is accordingly alleged that the petitioner has defrauded the complainant and his brothers and sisters by forging this power of attorney and getting the sale deed executed and hence, the complaint. On the basis of preliminary evidence, where the complainant has appeared and narrated the whole story and in support has examined Dheeraj as witness. Besides, he has examined Sukhpreet Kaur, who is a finger print and hand- writing expert. This witness has also lent support to the allegations made in the complaint. On the basis of this evidence, the petitioner has been summoned and he has now filed this petition for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged controversy relates to the will dated 9.10.1998 and the power of attorney on the basis of which the petitioner has executed a sale deed in favour of his own wife. For the same issue, civil suit was also filed and the power of attorney and the subsequent sale executed by the petitioner has been found to be valid and genuine document. It is, thus, stated that the issue of will has been decided against CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.38079 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: the complainant. The finding and the decision of the civil court is yet to be produced in evidence before the criminal Court, which is dealing with the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner. How the Criminal Court would have taken the judgement passed by Civil Court into consideration is a question, which the counsel could not explain. The sale deed is executed by the petitioner in favour of his own wife. If there was a will and a power of attorney in his favour, where was the need for the petitioner to execute sale deed in favour of his wife. The sale deed being genuine is not the issue. It is the manner in which it is done, may be material. The question is regarding the forgery of power of attorney. The Civil Court judgement is perused by me. The Civil Court has not minutely gone into this aspect in any detail of power of attorney being fake. In any event, the judgement passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Amritsar, is appealed against and yet to acquire finality. Only on this basis, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the criminal proceedings that are set in motion against the petitioner. The criminal Court has to decide the allegations made on the basis of evidence. It will be for the Court dealing with criminal case to see the effect of decree of Civil Court. This has to be so pleaded and CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.38079 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: proved in evidence before the Court. Accordingly, no case for quashing the complaint or the summoning order is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. December 16, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE