SATPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, three petitions bearing CRM-M No.35669 of 2014, CRM-M No.37376 of 2014 and CRM-M No.40297 of 2014 shall be decided as all the three petitions relate to the same dispute and relief sought in all these petitions is also the same. However, the facts are being taken from CRM-M No.35669 of 2014.

(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Complaint No.202 dtd. 23/10/2010 (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, as also the order dtd. 3/9/2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which the revision petition filed by respondent no.2 has been allowed and all the accused persons, including the present petitioners, have been ordered to be summoned to face trial for offences under Ss. 467/468/471/420/120-B IPC.

(3.) As per the averments, it has been pleaded by the petitioners that complainant-respondent no.2 purchased land measuring 77 kanals 02 marlas from Balwinder Singh @ Pargat Singh, Kheta Singh, Jarnail Singh and their mother Balwant Kaur, vide sale deed dtd. 20/6/2006. Mutation of this land was also sanctioned in his favour on 24/7/2006. It has further been averred that on 4/7/2006, the co-accused of the petitioners namely Kuldip Singh and Ajaib Singh, who are also related to the complainant-respondent no.2, called the complainant to Tehsil Complex, Malout saying that there is a defect in the sale deed and the same is to be rectified. When the complainant-respondent no.2 went to Tehsil office, then petitioners-accused persons were already present there. Signatures of the complainant- respondent no.2 were obtained on the blank papers in the office of another accused namely Vinod Kumar - Document Writer. It has further been averred that the accused persons including the petitioners got executed mortgage deed qua land measuring 44 kanals 15 marlas in favour of Satpal (petitioner no.1) in lieu of consideration of Rs.6,00,000.00. It has been alleged by the complainant-respondent no.2 that in fact, he never met Satpal and never knew him and also, the mortgage deed was executed by the accused persons in connivance with each other, whereas he never appeared before the Registrar on 4/7/2006 and with these allegations, he filed a complaint dtd. 23/10/2010 (Annexure P-1).