RANJIT SINGH Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the quashing of complaint, copy Annexure P-4, summoning order, copy Annexure P-5 and order dated 19.7.1997, copy Annexure P-8, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, vide which the learned Magistrate held that there was no bar in entertaining the complaint in hand and dismissed the application dated 30.4.1997 filed by the petitioners Ranjit Singh and others. The respondent Raghbir Singh s/o Thakur Singh, resident of Machhiwara, PS Machhiwara, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana filed a complaint before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala on 14.12.1997, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. This complaint was filed under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 474, 506/120-B IPC. According to the averments made in the complaint, the complainant Raghbir Singh owned a house and a plot situated in the Revenue Estate of Machhiwara-II, P.S. Machhiwara aforesaid. The boundaries of the plot and the residential house were set out in para 4 of the complaint as under :-

(2.) A site plan of the said property was also annexed with the complaint. A boundary wall was constructed by the complainant who alleged himself to be the owner in possession of the said property. The accused No. 1 Ranjit Singh, who is petitioner in this case allegedly started interfering in the possession of the complainant over the said house and plot which led to the filing of an application by the complainant before the Dy. Supdt. of Police, Samrala and SHO, Machhiwara who, however, did not take any action thereon. The accused- petitioner Ranjit Singh filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the Civil Court praying for removal of the foundation and for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the respondent Ranjit Singh and his relative Mohan Singh from interfering in the disputed land. The said suit was pending on the date when the impugned complaint was filed. The accused-petitioner Ranjit Singh placed reliance on a family settlement, dated 10.5.1988 in the civil suit which was alleged to be a forged and fictitious document. The complainant Raghbir Singh made a categorical assertion that the accused petitioner Ranjit Singh had no share in the house and nothing was given to the complainant, as per the alleged family settlement relied on by the petitioner-accused. The complainant, Raghbir Singh appeared before the Civil Court and filed his written statement and categorically denied his signatures on the alleged family settlement dated 10.5.1988. He took this plea that the accused-petitioner, Raghbir Singh prepared a forged and fictitious document of family settlement to grab the house and the property of the complainant, Raghbir Singh. The accused-petitioner Ranjit Singh threatened to take possession forcibly by illegal means and even threatened the complainant to cause him physical harm. It was alleged by Raghbir Singh, complainant that the petitioner-accused committed cognizable offences as aforesaid. This complaint dated 14.10.1992, Crl. Complaint No. 17/1 of 1992 was dismissed for want of prosecution by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala on 20.5.1993, vide copy of the order filed as Annexure-P2. The complainant-respondent filed another complaint on 22.7.1993 in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate Samrala, vide copy Annexure P-3 containing the same averments, which was also dismissed on 2.11.1993. This was followed by another complaint filed on 12.4.1994, copy Annexure P-4, on the basis of which Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala passed the impugned order of summoning on 22.11.1996. The petitioners moved an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. praying that they may be discharged from the said complaint case as the complainant had concealed the fact that two similar complaints had been filed and dismissed by that Court. The petitioner also moved an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C., calling upon the complainant to admit or deny the genuineness of the enclosed documents and compromise of Crl. Complaint No. 17 of 1992 and Crl. Complaint No. 29/1 of 1993 decided on 2.11.1993. These two applications came up for hearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Samrala on 19.7.1997 vide which it was held that the earlier complaints were dismissed in default or dismissed as withdrawn and they had not been dismissed on consideration of evidence on record and as such there was no bar in entertaining the complaints in hand. The other application moved by the petitioners was also dismissed under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The petitioners seek the quashing of the complaint, copy Annexure P-4. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents, who put in appearance and contested the case. Vide order dated 6.8.1997 passed by Hon'ble S.C. Malte, J. further proceedings in the trial court were stayed.

(3.) IN the instant case the offences involved in the complaint are as under :-