BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 16.01.2015 passed by CJM (NRI Cases), Jalandhar by which his application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in the case FIR No.167 dated 04.05.2007 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar, is rejected.

(2.) Petitioner through application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. wants to bring into evidence the agreement to sell dated 16.08.2005 executed by Jagtar Singh as power of attorney of Shiv Singh in favour of Baldev Singh and prove the payment in favour of said Jagtar Singh and further to prove the special power of attorney dated 16.08.2005 executed by said Jagtar Singh in favour of accused Gian Kaur duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Jalandhar on 16.08.2005 as registered document No.2266 dated 16.08.2005 and further to prove execution of general power of attorney No.596/4 dated 28.04.2005 executed by Shiv Singh s/o Jiwan Singh in favour of his brother Jagtar Singh s/o Jiwan Singh duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Jalandhar on 28.04.2005. Petitioner's application has been rejected on the score that it is not relevant document having regard to the allegations made in the FIR is relating to sale agreement dated 29.08.2006 read with 30.10.2006 between Gian Kaur and Paramjit Singh and Gurminder Jit Kaur and Gian Kaur and Baldev Singh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sale agreement dated 16.08.2005 between Shiv Singh (GPA Holder of Jagtar Singh and Baldev Singh) is for a sum of Rs. 48,50,000/-, whereas, later agreement stated to be between Gian Kaur and Paramjit Singh and Gurminder Jit Kaur for a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/-. Therefore, there is intertwine among these 3 sale agreements dated 16.08.2005, 29.08.2006 and 30.10.2006. Consequently, sale agreement dated 16.08.2005 is relevant material for the purpose of FIR No.167 dated 04.05.2009. Therefore, rejection of petitioner's application is arbitrary and illegal. It was also submitted that if the sale agreement dated 16.08.2005 is not relevant for the purpose of deciding FIR No.167, in that event, Court has always power to discard the document dated 16.08.2005. Thus, Trial Court has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Further learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in respect of sale agreement dated 29.08.2006 is concerned, a decree was ordered in favour of Paramjit Singh and Gurminder Jit Kaur wherein document dated 29.08.2006 has been upheld. Consequently, sale agreement dated 16.08.2005 cannot be taken into consideration as contended by the other side may not hold good in view of the Supreme Court decision passed in Devendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 (8) JT 120 para 1