TIRATH RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.4, dated 7.7.2010, registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC at Police Station NRI, S.B.S. Nagar. From a reading of the FIR, it is apparent that there is no allegation against the petitioner in any manner.

(2.) The case relates to a complaint made by Amrik Singh, respondent No.2, who is a Non Resident of India. Respondent No.2 had appointed Sandeep Kumar as his attorney on 24.2.2009 to look after his land situated in Village Gujjarpur, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. It is alleged that said Sandeep Kumar, who is son of the present petitioner, had taken the complainant to the office of Sub Registrar, Nawanshahr, on the pretext that his presence is required in the office for getting a mutation sanctioned of the land, ,which he had sold last year. On this pretext, Sandeep Kumar got his signatures on some papers. Later on, the complainant learnt that this ploy has been used to sell the land of the complainant to one Santokh Singh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that without any justification, the name of the petitioner and his wife have been dragged into this criminal litigation. Otherwise, they have no role to play in this entire episode. The counsel also refers to the order passed by this Court in a petition filed by wife of the petitioner, namely, Kulwinder Kaur, where the FIR and the subsequent proceedings qua Kulwinder Kaur have been quashed. It can be noticed that the land was sold by Amrik Singh himself and not through his attorney for a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/-. The photograph of Amrik Singh appears on the sale deed. While dealing with the case of the wife of the present petitioner, Kulwinder Kaur, a specific query was raised by this Court to ascertain as to what evidence had been collected in this case so far as the case of the said petitioner and others is concerned. The State counsel as well as counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent could not show any viable evidence, which would stand against the petitioner or his wife in whose case FIR was ultimately quashed vide order dated 1.11.2011. As per the statement made by the State counsel, the only evidence which stood against the wife of the petitioner was that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- had been deposited in the joint account of Kulwinder Kaur and son of the petitioner, Sandeep Kumar. That in itself, in my view, would not be enough to say that the petitioner or his wife had participated or conspired in any manner either with the son or others in getting the sale deed executed. This Court had rightly noticed the ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC and came to conclude that none of the ingredient of the offence under the said Section was made out against the wife of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is not distinguishable in any manner. There are not even a vague allegation made against the petitioner, which will give an indication that he having acted in any manner to cheat the complainant. In view of the above, the evidence so far collected and the allegations contained in the FIR would not reveal any offence under Section 420 IPC or of conspiracy etc. against the petitioner.