MITHU SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of Complaint No. 44/1 dated 15.3.2004, Annexure P4, filed by Paramjit Kaur against Mithu Singh along with summoning order, Annexure P5, passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha.

(2.) Petitioner had filed a civil suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 31 kanals situated in the revenue estate of Village Maan, Tehsil Malout, on the basis of family settlement dated 14.6.1987. The description and detail of the property has been given in the head note of the plaint. Mithu Singh stated in the plaint that Bishan Singh, his grandfather had died during the pendency of the suit and the defendants are his legal heirs. He is a coparcener in the joint Hindu family and in the ancestral property possessed and owned by Bishan Singh as a Karta. It is stated that a family settlement was arrived at and petitioner Mithu Singh became owner in possession of the suit land. It was further stated in the plaint that suit land was still standing in the name of Bishan Singh deceased and the same was required to be corrected. On notice, Bishan Singh appeared, filed a written statement and denied the family settlement. Later-on, Bishan Sigh died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Bhura Singh, father-in-law of the complainant was impleaded as defendant No. 1. Bhura Singh also denied the family settlement. Other defendants were proceeded against ex parte. Bhura Singh led no defence evidence. He later filed a suit, Annexure P2, through his attorney to state that he was owner in possession of the suit land and he had not filed any written statement to the suit filed by Mithu Singh and his signatures were obtained by Mithu Singh on some papers and were misused. He further denied the family settlement in the suit, Annexure P2. Later, Bhura Singh filed an application to withdraw the suit. It is stated that statement of Bhura Singh was also recorded. However, after 15 days, Bhura Singh appeared in Court and moved an application that his signatures were forcibly obtained against his free will. During the pendency of the suit, Bhura Singh died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Thereafter, a complaint has been filed by the respondent, daughter-in-law of Bhura Singh against the petitioner - Mithu Singh to state that written statement filed in the civil suit, Annexure P1, was a forged and fabricated document.

(3.) The question which the Court has to determine is as to whether the written statement filed by Bhura Singh in the civil suit, Annexure P1, was a forged document or not It is a question of fact. This can only be determined after the parties lead the evidence. This disputed question of fact, cannot be determined by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Hence, it is ordered that complaint, Annexure P4, in which summoning order, Annexure P5, has been passed shall stand transferred to the Court in which the Civil Suit, Annexure P2, is pending and both shall be tried separately but simultaneously. This direction has been given to deny the judicial embarrassment in parallel proceedings. Since the complaint, Annexure P4, was instituted in the year 2002 and the alleged written statement in the Civil Suit pertains to the year 1994, personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court shall remain exempted subject to his furnishing an undertaking that he shall cause appearance as and when required by the trial Court. He shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel shall be binding upon him. The trial Court may also incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be submitted by him.