IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. 46325-M of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 27, 2010 PARAMJIT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. GG Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. GS Pannu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. Criminal Misc. No. 46325-M of 2007 (Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab and another) and Criminal Misc. No. 25617-M of 2008 (Parminder Singh v. State of Punjab and another), as common questions of law and fact are involved. Both the petitions relate to the same relief viz. quashing of the same impugned complaint and summoning order. For facts, reference is being made to Criminal Misc. No.46325-M of 2007 (Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab and another) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.25 dated 22.1.2005 Criminal Misc. No. 25617-M of 2008 2 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-2), order of summoning dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure P-3) and all subsequent proceedings. The complaint (Annexure P-2) has been filed by Harpal Kaur (respondent No.2) against Man Singh and others. Petitioner-Paramjit Singh has been arrayed as accused No.3 and Parminder Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 25617-M of 2008) has been arrayed as accused No.2 in the complaint (Annexure P-2). The gist of the allegations in the complaint is that Harpal Kaur (complainant) is the widow of Inderjit Singh son of Man Singh. Man Singh, being the father-in-law, made a gift of a piece of land measuring 16 kanals 7-1/2 marlas, vide gift deed dated 26.9.2001, registered on 15.10.2001, in favour of complainant-Harpal Kaur and Jarnail Singh, minor son of the complainant, in equal share. The two persons were put in possession of the land. On the instigation of Paramjit Singh, who is Sarpanch of the village, Man Singh filed a suit for declaration for setting aside the gift deed. It transpires that the civil suit was subsequently withdrawn. In para-11 of the complaint, it has specifically been alleged that accused No.1 to 6, in collusion with each other, got executed and registered a sale deed dated 9.10.2003 in favour of Parminder Singh, in regard to the land that had already been gifted to the complainant and her son. Paramjit Singh is one of the witnesses to the sale deed. In para-13 of the complaint, the following allegations have been made:- Criminal Misc. No. 25617-M of 2008 3 “13. That the accused with common intention of all of them have conspired with each other and with a motive to cheat the complainant and other donees of valuable security have prepared forged and fictitious sale deed dated 9.10.2003 in favour of Parminder Singh-accused no.2. Paramjit Singh accused no.3 and he is presently Sarpanch of Village and Balwinder Singh accused have witnessed the sale deeds although they were in the full knowledge of the gift deeds since the time of their execution and registration. The accused no.5 and 6 have grabbed all the money which was received by Man Singh from Paramjit Singh and Parminder Singh-accused and they have invested the samke in the construction of a new house in Village Kohara. The complainant has further learnt that it is in fact Paramjit Singh- accused no.3 who has spent all the money in the execution and registration of the sale deed and Parminder Singh accused No.2 is only a Benamidar. Paramjit Singh accused no.3 tried to take forcible possession of disputed land referred to above from the complainant and other donees and the complaint in this respect has been moved to the various police authorities and the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana but till date no action has been taken on the complaint against the accused persons to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant and other donees gained knowledge of the sale deed dated 9.10.2003 in the last week of October 2003. They Criminal Misc. No. 25617-M of 2008 4 obtained the certified copy of the sale deed and have also challenged and sought set-aside of the same in the Civil Courts. Civil suit Ranjit Singh and others vs. Man Singh and others is presently pending in the court of Shri Jasbir Singh, Civil Judge Junior Division, Ludhiana. This suit was filed on 15.11.2003 and is now fixed for 9.2.2004.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that much before the execution of the sale deed, Man Singh had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the land in question and the gift deed did not confer any title on the donees. The suit was, however, withdrawn in view of a compromise. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, states that the suit was withdrawn without any condition. There is no compromise available on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that fraud had been committed with Parminder Singh as he had not been informed by Man Singh about the earlier gift of the same land. In regard to the role of Paramjit Singh, it has been stated that he was merely a witness and not a beneficiary. I have considered the pleadings and the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. As per the allegations in the complaint, extracted above, it is made evident that there are specific allegations against Paramjit Singh as also Parminder Singh. It has specifically been alleged in the complaint that Paramjit Singh and Parminder Singh were in the know of the factum of execution and registration of gift deed. It has further been alleged that Criminal Misc. No. 25617-M of 2008 5 Paramjit Singh had spent money on the execution and registration of the sale deed and Parminder Singh was only a Benamidar. Considering the nature of allegations, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavit to disprove the facts alleged in the complaint. The petitioner would have the right to lead evidence in defence to negate the allegations. In view of such disputed facts, no ground for quashing the impugned complaint and summoning order is made out. In view of the above, both the petitions are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. January 27, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?