HARNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Harnam Singh son of Amir Singh, resident of B -V -487, Mohalla Fatehganj, Ludhiana praying for the quashing of criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 2 -Sardar Singh son of Mehar Singh, resident of House No. B -V -575, Mohalla Fatehganj, Ludhiana against the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6, namely, Boota Singh, Naresh Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Gurnam Singh, all residents of Ludhiana, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120 -B of Indian Penal Code (for short referred to IPC) relating to Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Harnam Singh, the petitioner is the brother -in -law of the complainant Sardar Singh.

(2.) THE allegations made in the complaint, copy Annexure P1, in brief, are that petitioner Harnam Singh arrayed as accused No. 5 in the criminal complaint was a habitual grabber of the properties of other persons by procuring bogus documents. Accused Harnam Singh, the petitioner, forged a partition -deed of the year 1983 and filed a suit on the basis of the said partition -deed in the Court. The said suit was decided in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 2.9.1992 wherein the Court had made an observation regarding the false version concocted by the petitioner -accused Harnam Singh regarding the running of a joint dairy business with the complainant/defendant. The relevant observations made by the Court have been reproduced in para 3 of the complaint. The complainant -respondent Sardar Singh filed a complaint in view of the observations quoted in the impugned complaint, under Sections 420, 463, 464, 471, 468 and 193 IPC against Harnam Singh, the petitioner, his grand -son Gurwinder Pal Singh and nephew Dalip Singh which was pending in the Court of Mrs. Neelam Salaria, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. A copy of the said complaint was annexed with the impugned complaint. In view of the said background, it was alleged, the petitioner -accused Hamam Singh hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused respondents 3 to 6 of this petition, namely, Boota Singh, Naresh Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Gurnam Singh and prepared a false agreement to sell dated 17.7.1995 for the transfer of house No. B -XI -456 for the sale -consideration of Rs. 90,000/ - out of which a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - had been allegedly paid as earnest money to the complainant Sardar Singh. In the impugned complaint the entering into such agreement was categorically denied. It was also denied that any amount was paid to him as an earnest money in lieu of the sale -consideration in pursuance to the agreement to sell. The said agreement was alleged to be false, frivolous, bogus, forged document and brought about by impersonation. Apart from it, the accused -petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 served a notice through their counsel on the complainant respondent Sardar Singh calling upon him to execute the sale -deed. It was after the receipt of the notice that the complainant -respondent Sardar Singh came to know about the existence of the said deed of agreement. The further allegation made was that the document - writer, namely, Gurnam Singh, respondent No. 6 in this petition and arrayed as accused No. 4 in the complaint, did not mention full name and addresses of the parties and witnesses of the deed of agreement which was his duty to do so. The omission on the part of the deed writer to mention the complete names and addresses of the parties and witnesses of the documents showed that he was one of the active conspirators and he connived with the other accused in order to gain share in the property. It was also mentioned that Mr. P.S. Ahuja, Hand writing Expert had examined the disputed deed of agreement and was of the opinion that the signatures of the complainant -respondent Sardar Singh did not tally. The report of the Hand writing expert was also annexed with the complaint. On these averments the complaint was filed.

(3.) THE complainant examined himself and his witness Hand writing Expert Mr. P.S. Ahuja in the preliminary evidence. The learned Judicial Magistrate after perusing the preliminary evidence and averments made in the complaint was of the opinion that there were prima facie grounds shown to believe that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and accordingly, all the five accused were summoned by him by the impugned order, copy Annexure P4, dated 24.1.97.