1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 29845-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.10.2009 *** Gugan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is one of the accused in case FIR No. 906 dated 18.12.1997, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, relating to police station Civil Lines, Rohtak. The allegations in the FIR, so far as present petitioner is concerned, are that he in the year 1984 attested an affidavit, in the capacity of Oath Commissioner, which was allegedly executed by Rattan Singh,. The affidavit as well as the executant were found not genuine. As per prosecution allegations the said affidavt was used in obtaining some loan from Khadi Board, Rohtak. In the reply filed on behalf of State, it has been averred that one Munshi Ram represented himself as owner of New Jyoti Gram Udyog Sangh obtained a loan of Rs.73000/- in the year 1984 from the Haryana Khadi Board by providing forged jamabandi of the land of one Rattan Singh in connivance with the officials of Khadi Board for going a bogus work. During investigation, it was found that the mortgage deed as well as one affidavit, which were attested by the petitioner were found fake and thus, finding his involvement in the offence, he was rightly booked and charge- sheeted accordingly. 2 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been charged for an offence under Section 120-B IPC. He only attested the affidavit, which lateron was found to be fake. There is no material available on record to show that the petitioner was either conspirator in the alleged offence or in any way was beneficiary from the said loan amount, which otherwise was extended to some other persons i.e. the co-accused. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that there is any nexus between the accused and the petitioner and the act of the latter could not be termed as instigation or intentional aid to the accused. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Attar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1986(1) PLR 55, wherein under similar circumstances, this Court, while relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hira Lal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration, (1973) 75 Punjab Law Reporter 121, quashed the criminal proceedings. This Court is of the considered opinion that the charge against the petitioner is based on no prima facie evidence. Resultantly, the charges against the petitioner and also the proceedings against him are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 27,2009 Jiten