RAJ SINGH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raj Singh and four others by way of Crl. Misc. No.M- 8130 of 2013, Bir Partap Singh and another by way of Crl. Misc. No.M-8868 of 2013 and Sai Prem Singh by way of Crl. Misc. No.M- 8874 of 2013 seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 10 dated 15.02.2013 at Police Station PAU Ludhiana,District Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 465 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that Hazrat Peer Baba Sunet Shah Wali Memorial Trust (Regd.) (for short 'the Trust') is at the base of the controversy. According to them, control over the affairs of the Trust is the cause of struggle between Sai Prem Singh on the one hand and Jaswinder Singh, the complainant on the other hand. According to them, it is the legal requirement that President of the Trust would submit list of members of the governing body to the Registrar, Firms and Societies. who would issue the certificate of filing. They have further submitted that the petitioners except Sai Prem Singh are the members of the Trust and their names were given by Sai Prem Singh as members of the governing body to the Registrar, Firms and Societies. According to them, the complainant has levelled the allegation that Sai Prem Singh had been expelled from the governing body of the Trust and he has forged the seal and stamp of the Registrar of Firms and Societies in preparing certificate of filing. According to them, the case of the complainant is that no such certificate of filing was issued by the Registrar, Firms and Societies.

(3.) It is submitted that the members have no active role to be played in this matter. According to them, they have not even derived any benefit out of the transaction complained by Jaswinder Singh. According to them, they have already joined the investigation. They have further submitted that Jaswinder Singh has entered into a compromise with some of the members from the list submitted by Sai Prem Singh and the others with whom he has not compromised are the petitioners before the court.