Criminal.Misc.No.M-18398 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal.Misc.No.M-18398 of 2010 Date of Decision:-01 st July, 2010 Sarabjit Singh & Others .......Appellant v State of Punjab & Ors. .........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Respondent-State. JASWANT SINGH, J. Present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.55 dated 8.7.2005 registered under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, with police station Sadar-Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings thereto on the ground of false implication. Further prayer has been made for staying the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional CJM, Bathinda fixed for 6.8.2010 during the pendency of the present writ petition. Criminal.Misc.No.M-18398 of 2010 #2# Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Jang Singh was having three sons namely Nachatter Singh, Bikkar Singh and Ajaib Singh-petitioner no.2. Sarabjit Singh petitioner no.1 is the brother in law of Ajaib Singh-petitioner no.1. Nachatter Singh committed suicide on 7.9.2004. It is stated that respondent no.2-Jang Singh filed a complaint/FIR on 8.7.2005 alleging that Sarabjit Singh(petitioner no.1), Ajaib Singh(petitioner no.2) had got his signatures on blank papers on 7.9.2004 by taking him to Tehsil complex Bathinda by stating that the same was required for getting the post mortem examination conducted at Civil Hospital, Bathinda of the deceased son Nachatter Singh. It was further alleged that Sarabjit Singh thereafter forged an agreement to sell dated 7.9.2004 showing that a sum of Rs.40,50,000/- had been received by the complainant Jang Singh as earnest money for sale of his land measuring 38 Kanals 18 marlas and the sale deed was to be executed upto 30th May 2006. Petitioner no.2- Ajaib Singh and petitioner no.3-Partap Singh are the attesting witnesses. The case of the petitioner no.1 Sarabjit Singh is that complainant-Jang Singh wanted to back out from his agreement to sell and wanted to alienate the land in question by some third person and therefore, he was constrained to file civil suit no.206 for permanent injunction dated 18.5.2005, wherein complainant-Jang Singh was restrained from alienating the land. The said suit become infructuous after 30th May 2006 i.e. the date of execution of the sale deed, therefore, on 3.6.2006 Sarabjit Singh filed a suit for specific Criminal.Misc.No.M-18398 of 2010 #3# performance of contract dated 7.9.2004 qua the disputed land measuring 38 kanals 18 marlas. It is further stated that complainant Jang Singh has filed a written statement in the suit for specific performance wherein he has taken the plea of the agreement to sell dated 7.9.2004 being forged and fabricated one which also forms the subject matter of the instant FIR. Learned counsel at the time of arguments has not pressed his prayer for quashing the FIR but has argued that the proceedings in the criminal case fixed for 6.8.2010 be stayed so the question of the agreement to sell being a forged document can be decided by the civil court in the pending suit as the same would having a binding affect on the similar issues pending before the criminal court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this court is not persuaded to accept the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that after the framing of the charge in the criminal case some of the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the remaining Pws have been summoned for 6.8.2010. Learned counsel has also not disputed the legal proposition that the civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008(5)SCC 765 titled as P. Swaroopa Rani Vs. M. Hari Narayana Alias Hari Babu. Therefore, at this belated stage the plea of the petitioner is untenable and cannot be accepted. Needless to say, it will be open for the petitioner to take the advantage of the findings of the civil court as and when recorded in his Criminal.Misc.No.M-18398 of 2010 #4# favour at an appropriate stage. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE 01st July, 2010. Vinay