RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Raghubir Singh, Manpreet Singh and Baljinder Singh have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 3 dated 7.3.2019 registered under Sections 420 / 465 / 467 / 468 / 471 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act at Police Station NRI Ferozepur (Annexure P-4).

(2.) The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Harpreet Singh @ Vicky wherein it has been alleged that he along with his brother Gagandeep Singh and mother Chhinder Kaur have been residing in village Mann Wale and that whereabouts of his father Naib Singh are not known since the last 15 years. It is stated therein that he along with his brother Gagandeep Singh reside in Malaysia and had come to India a few days back and upon coming to India, they came to know that his paternal uncle (Taya) Raghubir Singh in connivance with his son Manpreet Singh, his brother-in-law Baljinder Singh, Numberdar Gurdev Singh, the Bank Manager of State Bank of India and other officials had got a loan raised by mortgaging land belonging to complainant and his brother with State Bank of India vide registration deed No. 1977 dated 5.11.2007 at Kotkapura, by way of impersonation and by forging their signatures. It is further stated therein that infact in the year 2007 when the alleged property was mortgaged, the complainant was aged barely 10 years and that even his brother was a minor. The complainant alleged that upon coming to know about the said fraud, he obtained a copy of the loan document from where he came to know that one Raghubir Singh and Gurdev Singh were the witnesses to the said document while Manpreet Singh and Baljinder Singh had impersonated in place of complainant and his brother and had affixed forged signatures.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and that there is no evidence worth credence to connect the petitioners with the alleged fraud. It has, thus, been submitted that the FIR is an abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel has further submitted that infact the entire loan now stands repaid and the land in question has been redeemed and as such, it cannot be said that the complainant has been cheated in any manner.