Crl. Misc. No. M-18147 of 2009 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18147 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01.9.2011. Baljit Singh and another ........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. D.P.S.Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Nirmaljit Singh, Advocate for Mr. N.S.Diwana, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the order dated 01.4.2009 (Annexure P-2) in FIR No. 34 dated 23.1.2008, under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Tripari, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are not party to the agreement to sell in question. The property in dispute was owned by Dhanna Singh. An agreement to sell the property in question was entered between Dhanna Singh and the complainant. The petitioners are not even the attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell in Crl. Misc. No. M-18147 of 2009 -2 - question. The petitioners were found innocent during investigation. Learned state counsel and the counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that all the accused in connivance with each other had cheated the complainant. Hence, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution to summon the petitioners as additional accused has been rightly allowed by the trial court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Admittedly, the property in question is owned by Dhanna Singh. Dhanna Singh had entered into an agreement to sell in question qua the suit property with the petitioner No.1. However, thereafter, Dhanna Singh had entered into an agreement to sell qua the suit property with the complainant. The petitioners are not the attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell executed by Dhanna Singh in favour of the complainant. The plea of the complainant is that all the accused in connivance with each other have cheated him. After thorough investigation of the case, challan was not presented against the petitioners. Since the petitioners have neither executed any agreement to sell in favour of the complainant nor are witnesses to the agreement to sell, executed by Dhanna Singh owner of the property in favour of the complainant, the petitioners were rightly found to be innocent during investigation. In case, the owner has not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the same. Rather, the petitioners could be said to be victims as despite the agreement Crl. Misc. No. M-18147 of 2009 -3 - to sell the suit property in favour of petitioner No.1, Dhanna Singh has executed the agreement to sell qua the suit property in favour of the complainant. The trial court had erred in summoning the petitioners to face the trial as additional accused vide the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.4.2009 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. Consequently, the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioners as additional accused stands dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 01, 2011 Gurpreet