In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-1085 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:18.3.2011 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Sukhbir Singh Tiwana, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 3.4.2009 for the offences under Sections 420, 423, 419 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of application submitted by Jagtar Singh and Jagmail Singh (respondents No.2 and 3). Jagtar Singh and Jagmail Singh (respondents No.2 and 3) have a dispute with their brother Balbir Singh (respondent No.4). The petitioner signed as a witness to the sale deed dated 30.10.2007 which was executed by Balbir Singh (respondent No.4). He signed the said sale deed by Cr. Misc. No.M-1085 of 2011 [2] representing himself as a Panch whereas he was not a Panch at the time of the execution of the sale deed on 30.10.2007. Jagtar Singh and Jagmail Singh (respondents No.2 and 3) in respect of the aforesaid sale deed had also filed a civil suit the plaint of which is Annexure-P.3 in which they did not get an interim stay. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the present FIR has been lodged only to put pressure on the petitioner. It is submitted that proceedings in the trial of the present case before the trial Court have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 7.1.2011 (Annexure- P.6) on a petition filed by Balbir Singh (respondent No.4 herein). In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation, however, the identity card of his being a Panch is to be recovered. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner in fact is a habitual offender and he is an accused in case FIR No.23 dated 9.2.2009 registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha for offences under Sections 452, 448, 379, 354, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Section 27 of the Arms Act. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties. The dispute in the case is primarily between the brothers i.e. Jagtar Singh and Jagmail Singh (respondents No.2 and 3) on the one hand and Balbir Singh (respondent No.4) on the other. Balbir Singh (respondent No.4) has filed Criminal Misc. No.M-508 of 2011 seeking quashing of the FIR in which this Court vide order passed on 7.1.2011 (Annexure-P.6) has stayed the proceedings before the trial Court. The petitioner now apprehends his arrest. According to Balbir Singh (respondent No.4) an oral family partition between all the co- Cr. Misc. No.M-1085 of 2011 [3] sharers had taken place in the year 2002 which was recorded vide Rapat No.548 by the Halqa Patwari on 1.7.2002. The same was presented before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and all the parties appeared and acknowledged the same. Balbir Singh (respondent No.4) was given an area measuring 26 Bighas 11 Biswas. A civil suit (Annexure-P.3) has also been filed by Jagtar Singh and Jagmail Singh (respondents No.2 and 3) against Balbir Singh (respondent No.4) and other vendees with regard to the alienation made by Balbir Singh (respondent No.4) in favour of other vendees. However, no interim relief was granted in favour of respondents No.2 and 3. The trial in the criminal case arising out of the FIR in the present case has been stayed. The allegation against the petitioner is that he misrepresented himself as a Panch in the sale deed executed on 30.10.2007 whereas he was not a Panch. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the petitioner was an ex-Member, Panchayat, therefore, he had written `Panch' below the sale deed and according to the learned counsel, the same is not such a consequence so as to fasten any criminal liability. Be that as it may, the said aspect is to be considered and gone into by the investigating agency or the Court as the case may be. However, keeping in view the nature of facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner being a former Panch had written `Panch' below his name in the sale deed, which is also subject matter of a civil suit; besides, trial in the present criminal case has been stayed by this Court, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner in the present case is admitted to pre-arrest bail. Cr. Misc. No.M-1085 of 2011 [4] Accordingly, the petitioner in the event of his arrest on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer shall be admitted to bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. March 18, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*