DEEP CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), petitioners Deep Chand and Ram Kishan seek quashing of First Information Report No. 755 date 11.7.1992 registered against them and others under Sections 419/420/467/471/120-B, Indian Penal Code at Police Station City, Sonepat. The aforesaid case was registered on the written report made by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat. It was stated therein that Trilok Chand son of Chandgi Ram resident of Village Aterna, Tehsil and District Sonepat, had made a complaint dated 5.2.1992 to Tehsildar, Ganaur stating that Krishan Dutt son of Goverdhan and Suraj Bhan son of Deep Chand residents of Village Umedgarh had obtained a decree form Civil Court by producing fictitious persons in order to cause loss to his (Trilok Chand's) brothers. These allegations were enquired into by Tehsildar, Ganaur and thereafter he submitted a report vide his Memo. No. 995/R dated 16.3.1992 in which he had concluded that, in fact, the decree had been obtained by producing fictitious persons in the Civil Court. The case was still under investigation when the present petition was filed.

(2.) NOTICE of this petition was given to the State. In reply, it has been stated that the case was rightly registered against the petitioners on the basis of enquiry made by Tehsildar, Ganaur, on the complaint of Trilok Chand (complainant). It was also pointed out that First Information Report in question had been quashed by this Court qua accused Krishan Dutt and Suraj Bhan and the proceedings were pending only against the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted before me that as fictitious persons were produced before the Court during the pendency of the suit in the Civil Court and a decree was obtained by accused Krishan Dutt and Suraj Bhan, it was only that Court which was competent to get the case registered against the petitioners and the bar of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code would apply in this case. This submission has been controverted from the side of the respondent.