AVTAR SINGH KHURANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER filing of charge-sheet in FIR No.697/2002 under Sections 406/420/468/471/506/120B of IPC registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, Delhi quashing of above-said FIR is sought by petitioner who is alleged to be instrumental in commission of forgery to cheat Kuldeep Singh-First Informant of the FIR in question. Normally, such petitions are not entertained as petitioner has efficacious remedy of assailing the charge- sheet filed at the stage of hearing on point of charge before trial court and to secure a discharge. Since this petition has been already admitted and both the sides were heard and thereupon this petition is being disposed of by this order after perusing the material on record.

(2.) THE crux of the charge-sheet filed in FIR in question is that property No.F-90, East of Kailash, Delhi was sold by one Laxmi Narain to co-accused of petitioner as well as to the complainant/First-Informant, who are real brothers. A Power of Attorney was executed in favour of petitioner by the seller-Laxmi Narain alongwith Agreement to Sell of 6th June, 1974. Complainant/First-Informant had one third share in aforesaid property (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'). Complainant- Kuldeep Singh, who settled in London, had visited India on the death of his brother Gurinder Singh in July, 2002 and was surprised to learn that subject property has been converted into free-hold in the names of co- accused while excluding complainant on the basis of forged Agreement to Sell, etc. The forgery alleged is that original Agreement to Sell of the year 1974 of subject property was in the name of petitioner's co-accused and the complainant, which was replaced by forged Agreement to Sell of the year 1974, but was prepared on a stamp paper purportedly issued to third party in June, 1981. During investigation, it has been found that the stamp paper on which the forged Agreement to Sell was executed in favour of petitioner's co-accused while excluding complainant was done with active connivance of petitioner, who is related to the parties and is said to be a property dealer.

(3.) IT was vehemently contended by learned senior counsel for petitioner that petitioner is not the beneficiary of the alleged forgery and cheating and so the ingredients of the offence alleged is lacking qua petitioner. It was urged on behalf of petitioner that there is delay of 14 years in launching the criminal proceedings as the alleged forgery or cheating was committed by petitioner's co-accused way back in the year 1993. It was pointed out by learned senior counsel for petitioner that there is no investigation regarding forgery of signatures of Laxmi Narain on the Agreement to Sell and what renders criminal proceedings, sterile is that in civil proceedings complainant has already got in the name of petitioner deleted and so continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be contrary to the dictum of Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 which is as under: -