IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-11785 of 2009 Date of decision: 30th April, 2009 Bhag Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the complaint RT No. 54 dated 27.07.2006/ 15.12.2007, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ropar under Sections 323, 447, 506, 148, 149 IPC, in which petitioners have been summoned to stand trial under Section 323, 447, 506 read with section 34 IPC. It is stated in the petition that petitioner No.1 is posted as Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Kalan, District Ropar. He had purchased some land from the complainant and his brother through separate sale deeds dated 18.12.2000, 05.02.2001, 20.06.2001 and 28.05.2001. The entire sale consideration was paid to the complainant. On 19th November, 2003, complainant through his son, namely Sikandar Singh, filed civil suit against the petitioner and complainant, his father, for annulment of the sale deeds, taking into account that he was a coparcener with his father, complainant. He had Criminal Misc. No. M-11785 of 2009 also prayed for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed on 30th January, 2009. Copy of judgment is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. It is stated that complainant also filed another suit on 3rd June, 2003. The judgment by the appellant Court has been attached as Annexure P-2. Grievance of the petitioner is that on 29th June, 2006, an application was filed by the complainant, respondent No.2 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, in which mutual compromise (Annexure P-4) was arrived at. As recorded in the compromise, complainant admitted before the Panchayat that he had mentioned the name of petitioners and other accused wrongly and he apologized for this mistake. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that for the same allegations, for which complaint (Annexure P-3) was filed with Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar and a compromise was arrived at, complainant has instituted complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ropar. Complaint has been attached as Annexure P-5. In the complaint, vide summoning order (Annexure P-6), petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for offence under Section 323, 447, 506 read with section 34 IPC. Three-fold submission has been made before this Court. Firstly, it has been stated that petitioners were involved in a civil litigation with the complainant. Son of the complainant had filed a civil suit for annulling the sale deed, in which petitioners succeeded and therefore, the present complaint has been instituted as a counter-blast, so that the petitioners succumb before the complainant, at whose instance civil rights of parties are being determined. Secondly, it has been submitted that the complainant had earlier submitted a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police and 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-11785 of 2009 a mutual compromise (Annexure P-4) was arrived at between the parties, where complainant has tendered apology. Last argument raised by counsel for the petitioners is that since complainant has submitted a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, till the inquiry on the complaint is concluded, complainant is estopped from approaching the criminal Court. This argument of counsel for the petitioners is to be rejected out-rightly. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he will modify his argument and submit that Court cannot take cognizance until police concludes the inquiry. In the present case, a complaint has been instituted by the complainant in the Court, no FIR has been registered, therefore, Court can take cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, arguments raised cannot be accepted to quash criminal complaint and summoning order passed thereafter. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the true copy of the annexures, signatures of all the complainants are not there, but in the vernacular they do appear. Clarification furnished is taken on record. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that taking into consideration that parties were agitating before civil Court, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court may be exempted. Taking into consideration this submission of the counsel for the petitioners, personal appearance of the petitioners, before the trial Court is exempted subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-11785 of 2009 The trial Court may incorporate any other conditions in the undertaking to be submitted by the accused. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 30, 2009 rps 4