IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25403 of 2009 Date of decision : December 10, 2009 Rajinder Kumar Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present : Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Pannu, DAG Punjab NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 402 dated 19.7.2005 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 218, 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising thereof. The said complaint was filed by Sukhdev Kaur and Jaldev Kaur, daughters of Bhagwan Singh stating that they were six daughters of their father. It is further stated that their father – Bhagwan Singh and uncle Kartar Singh had huge property in the village. Jangir Singh who was their step brother in connivance with village Nambardar Sucha Singh and Nambardar Masinder Singh prepared forged affidavit of Shamsher Singh dated 14.10.2004. The signatures of Shamsher Singh who is the real brother of Jangir Singh on that affidavit was forged as Shamsher Singh had already died many years ago. On the basis of the affidavits, mutation No. 1411, File No. 46, dated 28.2.205 was sanctioned. In pursuance to the registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and final report was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused alongwith Gurdhian Singh, Satwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Jangir Singh, Sucha Singh and Angrej Singh. In pursuance to the final report, Crl. Misc. No. M-25403 of 2009 2 charges were framed against the petitioner with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. Thereafter, the complainant party entered into compromise with above mentioned six accused. The compromise dated 21.12.2007 has been placed on record as Annexurre P-2. On the basis of said compromise, this Court vide order dated 2.4.2008 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 8142 of 2008 quashed the FIR qua all the above mentioned six accused. Thus, it is apparent that the proceedings qua all the accused except the present petitioner have came to an end. While opposing the quashing of FIR qua the petitioner, learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that the present petitioner was Patwari and he had changed the mutation in connivance with the other concerned. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant to contest inspite of service. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR. The FIR specifically states that it was on the basis of an affidavit submitted by the accused persons that the present petitioner had entered the mutation. Thus, the allegation was against the six accused and not against the petitioner. Even otherwise, all the other accused have entered into compromise with the complainant and the proceedings against all the other accused stand quashed. No cause of action remain against the petitioner. It is evident that no role has been attributed to the petitioner except that he entered the mutation. In any case, the allegation is that he entered the mutation on the basis of the affidavit. FIR against the accused persons who forged the affidavit stands quashed. Thus, the very basis of the FIR goes. Section 120 B, therefore, is not attracted. The continuation Crl. Misc. No. M-25403 of 2009 3 of the proceedings against the petitioner will amount to an abuse of process of law. No allegation has been leveled by the complainant against the petitioner. He is not even named in the FIR. It is evident from the perusal of the FIR that no offence is made out against the present petitioner. The complainant too has not appeared to contest the present petition. In view of the above facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 402 dated 19.7.2005 at Police Station Sadar Patiala under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 218, 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings qua the present petitioner are, accordingly, quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) 10.12.2009 Judge reena