62 r3 r 0 Crlvlisclov28618 of 2007 Crl Misclloll52898 of 2007 Crl Miscllov542510f 2007 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH c It k k Cr Miscllovlm28618 of 2007 Dateofdecision DecemberI2009 k k lr 1 Bhagirath Rai r Pitioner 0 C Versus I C5 I JagtarSingh eenRespondent Z Crl Misc Noe52898 of 2007 Date of decision Decemberl2009 C M 9r 1 9t I HariSingh 08 I a e e etitioner 4t 3 Versus Z JagtarSingh eeRespondent Ct MisclJo Me54251of 2007 Date of decision Decemberl2009 k lr R k k SurjitSinghand HarvailSingh Petitioners Versus JagtarSingh Ieeespondent 1k k R R R Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.09 17: 55 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 Cr MisclloA28618 of 2007 Cr Miscllov52898 of 2007 Cr Misc NoAe542510f 2007 121 CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE JORA SINGH 1k R k R R Presentl Mr Munish Kumar SinglaAdvocate for the Mr G S Sandhawalia Advocatefor the r n1 W 5 0 C JORA SINGH J C5 By this common judgmentI propose to disposeof Crl I Misc No286184vl of 2007 filed byBhagirath Rai Crl Misc No N Z 52898 of 2007 filed by Hari Singhand Crl Misc No N54251 of 2007 filed bySurjitSinghand Harvail Singh These petitionshave been filed under Section 482 CrC for quashingof criminal oli complaintdated 11 42001 Annexure Pmll and order dated 62006 Pe21passedby Sub Divisional Judicial 7 Z Sunam Om Complaint dated 1142001 was institutedbyJagtarSingh againstSurjitSingh Hari Singh Bhagirath Rai and Harvail Singh ASl Police Post Cheema on the allegation that he owns Iand in vlllageShahpurKalan and Pakhon KaIan He had givenpowerof attorney to the Commission AgentBhagirath Rai for givinghis Iand situatedin the revenue estate of villagePakhon Kalan on Ieaseebatai While writingPower of Attorneyaccused in connivance with each other got prepared two agreementsin the name of Surjitsingh regardingIand situated in VillagePakhon Kalan JagtarSinghdid not execute any agreementnor received any payment There was Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.09 17: 55 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 r Crl Miscllo28618 of 2007 Crl Misclo052898 of 2007 Crl MiscIloIAe542510f 2007 131 no needto alienate the Iancl He came to know about the execution of sale deeds by the Attorney Then power of attorneywas cancelled Civil suit was instituted by him againstAmar Nath and others for rendition of accounts in connection with his crops m C2 Accused filed two suits for executingthe sale deeds as per 0 to sell He had filed writ petitionbefore HighCourt FIR 0 I Nol dated 61 996 was at Police Station Sunam C9 againstthe accused Duringpendency of Iitigationhe used to visit I his Advocate Narinder Singhat Sunam where he came in contact Z with VarinderjitSinghson of Harmail SinghThanedar r Singhstated that he is to requesthis father Harmail Singhthen ali the accounts are to be settled Cases pendingat Barnala areto be olj withdrawn As per requestof Singhhe had gone to PP e a7 Cheema where Harmail Singhmet him and stated that cases on the of fictltiousagreement to sell are to be withdrawnand accounts tl of the crops will be settled Cases filed by him JagtarSinghlare to be taken back Harmail Singhhad sent his SO Singh with him Near Dhanola Theka Iiquor was offered to him After that his statement was gotrecorded for decreeing the suits pendingin the Barnala Court He was directed not to say anythingHe was simply to sign Ill the Court and cases are to be withdrawn After that HarmailSinghwas requestedto settle the accounts but he refused to get the accounts settled and started him to send him behind the bars and submitted cancellation reportsIn FlR got Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.09 17: 55 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 Ctl Misc Nov28618 of 2007 Crl Misc NoV52898 of 2007 Crl MisclloAm54251 of 2007 41 by him Complaints were sent to different authorities In FlR N31 he received notice and made a statement in the Court that he want actionagainstASl Harmaii Singh and Bhaglrath Rai HarmailSinghsson who is Advocate did not allow him to engage any counsei from Sunam Court 1 r Notice of motionwas issued 0 Respondent filed reply C I Learnedcounsel for the petitionersarguedthat according C5 to the story GPA was executed in favour of Bhagirath Rai to give Iand situated at VillagePakhon Kalan on Ieaselbatai but Bhagirath Z Rai and others e the gotpreparedtwo agreementsto r sell In case agreementsto sell were not valid then should have instituted civil suits Annexure P1 is the complaint 08 dated 11 2001 order is dated 62006 Annexure P m fl 3 is the copy of the in civil Suit No 165 institutedby Z 44 SurjitSinghagainstJagtarSingh JagtarSinghmade a statement Itl the Court that suit for specificperformanceof Iand 16 kanals be decreed SaIe deed is to be executed up to 30 1999 againstpaymentof Rs3500001 which was received as earnest money Possession of 16 kanal is to be delivered Statement of JagtarSinghwas signedby him and his counsel SurjitSinghson of SajjanSinghplaintiffin Suit no165 had also signedthe compromise On the basis of compromise 1nnexure P31 Suit No 165 was decreecl Annexure Pe6 is the copy of the judgment Civil Suit nol 66 was instituted bySurjitSinghagainstthe Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.09 17: 55 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 Crl Misc Novlm28618 of 2007 Cr MisclloVlm52898 of 2007 Crl MisclloV54251 of 2007 51 Suit was qua Iand 27 kanals 12 marlas but as per civil Suit N166 was aiso decreecl Annexure Pe 7 is thecopy of the judgmentAnnexure P5 is the copy of the statement of signedby his counsel Sh S Dhillon m Statementis dated 281 999 AnnexureP8 is the copy of civil suit no247 dated 0 C 261997 filed by JagtarSinghagainstMls Amar nath and sons Rai andMls Amar llathBirjLaL for rendition of accounts C the suit was got dismissed as withdrawn In case Z did not execute agreements to sell throughattorneythen 2 therewas no idea to effect No complaintagainst r Dhillon Advocate that his signatures were obtained by fraud Civii I 08 Suit No 165 8 166 were decided on 301 999 whereas civii Suit J 1110247filed by the respondentwas got dismissed on 2881 999 3 There is a findingof the Civil Court that agreementto sell by the throughhis Attorney are valid one e whycivil suit for specificperformance of the contract were decreed Suit for rendition of accounts was got dismissed Complaint P l dated 11 2001 is a misuse of the process of Iaw Counsel for the respondentarguedthat Power of Attorney was executed simplyto giventhe Iand on Ieaselbatai Under the influence of Iiquorsignaturesof the respondentwere obtained and the suits were got decreed Submission of the Iearned counsel for the petitioners seems to be reasonable one Aliegationof the respondentis that he Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.09 17: 55 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 67 Crl Misclol28618 of 2007 Ci Misclov152898 of 2007 CrIliscNoA54251of 2007 161 did not execute to sell throughhis attorney In fact General Power of Attorneywas executed in favour of Bhagirath Rai to Iet out the Iand on thekalbatai But by fraud and two were preparedAnnexure Pe3is the dated 281 999 SurjitSinghhad filed suit Nol 65 0 quaIand measuring16 kanals againstthe respondentParties had 0 effected Respondentby appearing in the Court made 0 I statementdated 281 99 Annexure f51 In view of the statement C5 I Annexure P51 dated 281 999 compromiseEx CX dated 2871999 Annexure P31was producedin the Court Z As per civil suit no165 qua Iand 16 kanals was decreed Annexure P4 is the copy of compromiseEx CX dated 08 281999 in civil Suit No166 Suit No166 was qua Iandmeasuring 7 27 kanals 12 marlas As per sale deeds were to be Z executed by the respondentup to 301 1 099 As per compromise Annexure P41 dated 281999 Civil Suit No166 was also decreed Annexure P5 is the copy of the statement of JagtarSinghdated 281999 JagtarSinghrespondenthad engagedSh S Dhillon Advocate Sttement was also signedby Sh S Dhillon Advocate Annexure Pw6 is the copy of the judgmentin Civil Suit no 165 Annexure F7 is the copy of the judgment in CiviI Suit No 66 dated 301999 Respondenthad also filed civil suit no47 of 2611997 for renditionof accounts for settlingthe account with the defendants from hari 1994 to hari 1996 and for recoveringthe documents stamp Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.09 17: 55 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 e Cr MiscloVle28618 of 2007 1 Crlvlisc Nov52898 of 2007 Crl Mlscllo54251 of 2007 71 paperswhich the defendants have got sgned from JagtarSingh Civil Suit N0247 was got dismissed as withdrawn before Lok Adalat In case did not execute GPA in favour of 1 Bhagirath Rai to alienate Iand then respondentshouId have contested the suits in stead of contesting suit no165 and 166filed 0 C bySurjitSingh had effected compromiseX dated I C5 281999 in both the suits writtencompromisesignedbythe parties I and Sh JS Dhiilon Advocate for the was presentedin Z the Court In view of the compromisecivil Suit no165 and Civil Suit No66 were decreed on 301999 Respondent had filed civil suit N0247 againstBhagirath I 1 08 1 Rai and others But the suit was got dismissed withdrawn by as appearing before the Lok Adalat on 281999 Either on 281999 7 Z or on 281999 no complaintto the Court that his signatures are obtainedbyfraud or by or when he was underthe influence of Iiquor No complaintagainstSh J S Dhiilon Advocate that he did not signas his counsel e the compromiseExX and the statement dated 281 999 If on 281999 signaturesof the respondent were obtained when he was under the influenceof Iiquor then on the next date or after few dates respondentshould have sent complaintsto different authorities In view of the statement dated 281999 suit Nos165 and 166 were not decreed on the same day In fact as per compromiseEx CX dated 2871999 civil suit no165 and civil suit n166 were decreed on 307999 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.09 17: 55 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 e C Cr MisclloV28618 of 2007 Ci Miscllo52898 of 2007 Crl MiscloVle54251 of 2007 181 As discussed earlier if signatures of the were obtainedby fraud or then was not to withdraw civil Suit no47 filed againstBhaginhRai and otherfor rendition of accounts byappearing before the Lok AdaIat 1r Member of the Lok Adalat was also present In view of the statement 0 of the suit N0247 was dismissed as withdrawn Order C I was signedby the PresidingOfficers of the Lok Adalat and one C5 Member I Civil Suit nos 165 and 166 were pendingin the Civii Z Court at Barnala and were decreed on 301 999 as per r ExCX whereas civil suit no247 was pendingat Sunam So the I respondentcannot argue that under the influence of Iiquorhis 06 signatureswere obtained Agreementtosell was not executed and the GPA was simplyto Iet out the Iandon Ieaselbatai Wm3 Z Annexure Pel is the complaintdated 11 2001 on the tl same allegation that agreementto seil was not executecl ln fact GPA was executed to Iet out the Iand on ieaselbatai but while preparingGPA two agreements to sell were gotexecuted Judgmentof the Civil Court is bindingon the Criminal Court Continuation of the complaintand order are the clear cut misuse of the process of Iaw Criminal complaintdated 11 2001 Annexure Pm11 and summoningorder dated 62006 Annexure P21 with all the consequent arising therefromare set aside 4 December 2009 1 SINGH 1 ritu JUDGE 11 71 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.09 17: 55 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document