PARVEEN KUMAR AND ORS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parveen Kumar, Anil Kumar and Rahul Gupta, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 09.02.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana as well as the judgment dated 09.05.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana.

(2.) As submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, on the allegation that the petitioners had executed an agreement of sale in respect of certain piece of land in favour of Parminder Singh,complainant, the latter filed suit for permanent injunction on the basis of photocopy of the agreement of sale. According to him, he did not place on record the original agreement of sale. He has further submitted that alleging theft of the original agreement of sale by the petitioners, Parminder Singh has lodged FIR No. 231 dated 03.10.2007 at Police Station Model Town Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under sections 201, 380 and 420 IPC. According to him, the civil court had found the agreement to be forged and on the basis of said finding, the application for ad-interim injunction filed by Parminder Singh in the aforesaid suit was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2010 (Annexure P/12). According to him, the appeal preferred by Parminder Singh against the aforesaid order was also dismissed.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the suit having been filed without the original agreement, the petitioners had asked him to produce the original and on being asked to produce the original, he came with the plea that the original agreement has been stolen. He has further submitted that the cancellation report had been submitted in the case by the police and was submitted before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, who vide order dated 09.02.2008 (Annexure P-3) took cognizance of the offence. He has further submitted that the court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence in these circumstances because the very agreement on the basis of which the FIR has been lodged is found to be forged one.