JANGIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners Jangir Singh and Amarjeet Singh for quashing of the FIR No. 61 dated April 7, 1997 filed under Sections 420/467 and 468 IPC registered at Police Station Barnala. A copy of the aforesaid FIR has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition.

(2.) SUKHDEV Singh, who ultimately got himself impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the present petition had submitted an application to the Director General of Police, Chandigarh lodging a complaint against Jangir Singh and Amarjeet Singh (Present petitioners). In the aforesaid application, it was submitted that Sukhdev Singh was owner of a house constructed on the land measuring 1 Kanala 13 marlas. Sukhdev Singh stated that he had constructed the building on that land by spending a huge amount. It was alleged that Jangir Singh and Amarjeet Singh had illegally got into the possession and in order to mis- appropriate that property, had forged the signatures of the father of Sukhdev Singh namely Naginder Singh. It was maintained by Sukhdev Singh that signatures of Naginder Singh were forged. On the basis of these allegations of cheating and forgery, FIR No. 61 as aforesaid was registered.

(3.) A civil suit, being suit No. 20 dated January 18, 1991 was filed by Sukhdev Singh, Ajmer Singh and others against Jangir Singh and Balbir Singh seeking the possession by way of partition. The aforesaid suit pertains to the property which is subject matter of the present FIR. Ultimately vide judgment and decree dated April 3, 1999, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barnala, dismissed the aforesaid civil suit of the said Sukhdev Singh and others. A positive finding was recorded that the documents Exhibit D1 and D2, whereby Balbir Singh and Naginder Singh had given their share to Jangir Singh through a family settledment were duly proved to have been executed and the execution of the aforesaid documents has been proved beyond any doubt. After coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the claim made by Sukhdev Singh and others was dismissed.