- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 309 dated 10.6.2003 registered under Sections 420, 467,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P5)and order dated 21.3.2007 (Annexure P8) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri.
(2.) The relevant contents of the FIR in question read as under:- "Sir, the applicant respectfully submits as under:(1) That the accused No.1 is the real brother-in-law (Behanoi) of the applicant and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the real brothers of the applicant. (2) That the applicant is the owner in possession as co-sharer of the agricultural land situated in Mauza Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar with his brothers and accused Nos. 2 and 3 (3) That the applicant appointed the accused No.1 as his General Attorney vide General Power of Attorney dated 27.6.2002 and similarly the accused No.1 this all was done in order to settle the misunderstandings in the family, the accused No.1 being the common relative of the applicant and the accused No. 2 and 3 was appointed as General Attorneys in the said General Power of Attorney dated 27.6.2002 of the applicant the description of the land was specifically mentioned in order to avoid any further complaint. (4) That all the accused in furtherance of their common intention hatched a conspiracy to put loss to the applicant and they started negotiations to alienate the share of the applicant in the said land stated above and an agreement to sell was executed by the accused No.1 in favour of one Shri Harsish Kumar son of Sh. Ghansham Dass resident to Jagadhri and when this agreement to sell come to the knowledge of the applicant then the applicant doubted the integrity and intention of the accused No.1 in the said agreement to sell neither the total area of the land was mentioned nor the amount was mentioned nor the rate has been mentioned nor any earnest money has been mentioned which showed the malafide intention of the accused No. 1 (5) That the applicant keeping in view the above said malafide intention of the accused No.1 got the above said General Power of Attorney dated 27.6.2002 cancelled on 11.11.2002 and prior to that cancellation, the accused No.1 was very much informed that the applicant is going to cancel the said General Power of Attorney and after getting the same cancelled through Registered Cancellation Deed dated 11.11.2002, the applicant again informed the accused No.1 telephone regarding cancellation of the said General Power of Attorney and also sent the information regarding cancellation of the General Power of Attorney to the accused No.1 through courier and this cancellation was also got published by the applicant by the News Paper 18.11.2002 published on 19.11.2002 (6) That all the accused in furtherance of their common intention to put the applicant to loss got executed and registered lease deed and for 99 years of the share of the applicant on 12.11.2002 and then got executed and registered a release deed on 18.11.2002 regarding the share of the applicant. All the accused persons were aware of this fact that the accused No.1 is no more General Attorney of the applicant and were having reason to believe that the accused No.1 was not competent to execute the lease deed and release deed dated 12.11.2002 and 18.11.2002 respectively in favour of any person including the accused Nos. 2 and 3 (7) That despite the telephonic message and message through courier to the accused No.1 by the applicant and despite the publication of the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney dated 27.6.2002 in the News Paper published on 19.11.2002 all the accused in furtherance of their common intention stated above also got the mutation No. 7801 and 7803 on the basis of lease deed dated 18.11.2002 and release deed dated 18.11.2002 respectively entered and attested and hence the intention of the accused persons is clear. (8) That may be submitted here that the applicant had given the above said General Power of Attorney dated 27.6.2002 in respect of specific land and the area has also been mentioned in the same but despite that the accused persons got the said deeds i.e. lease deed and release deed fabricated for more land than given in the said General Power of Attorney it shows the malafide intention of the accused persons. (9) That by the above said acts all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have committed offence under Section 420, 467, 120-B IPC, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the case may kindly be registered against the above said persons. Sd/- Atul Kumar."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the civil proceedings, complainant had failed to establish that the general power of attorney in question was tampered with or that Sanjay Kumar had fraudulently transferred the entire property of the complainant in favour of petitioners-Vishnu Kumar Goel and Amarjit Singh @ Amandeep Singh.;