- (1.) Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of Criminal complaint No. 296 dated 1.8.2003 (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 28.9.2010 under Sections 420/469/471/120- B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Fazilka along with all consequent proceedings relating thereto.
(2.) The relevant contents of the complaint (Annexure P1) read as under:- "1.That the complainant alongwith his brother Raja Ram and his nephew are owners in possession of land measuring 37 Kanals 12 Marlas comprised in Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 2(8-0), 3 (8-0), 4(8-0) 8(7-4),9,(6-8) situated in village Ladhuka Tehsil Fazilka. 2.That the land referred to above is very fertile and costly land. My brother Raja Ram entered into an agreement to the extent of his share with accused No.1 regarding his 1/3 rd share of land at the rate of Rs.280000/- per acre. The complainant was not willing to sell his land at any cost. But the accused no.1 wanted to grab the land of complainant and in order to do so he got entered the name of complainant in the agreement dated 28.12.2000. The accused No.1 in league and in connivance with accused No.2 and 3 hatched a conspiracy and got entered the name of complainant in the agreement. This agreement is witnessed by accused No.2 and 3, whereas the complainant has never came to Fazilka on the alleged date of agreement. He never signed the agreement. My brother Raja Ram and myself cannot read or write Punjabi language. Taking benefit of this accused No.1 got scribed the agreement in league and connivance with accused No. 2 and 3 and got it typed from some typist in the court complex at Fazilka. 3.That my brother Raja Ram actually entered into an agreement with accused No.1 to the extent of his share, which comes out to 12 Kanals 10 Marlas and he received Rs. One lac as earnest money and the date for execution of sale deed which was orally agreed by Rajaj Ram and accused No.1 was 28.5.2001, but the date written in the agreement for execution of sale deed is 6.6.2001. Raja Ram got his presence marked on 28.5.2001 but the accused No.1 filed a case for permanent injunction on 13.11.2001 against Raja Ram and myself (complainant). This suit was however withdrawn on 20.4.2002. After that the accused no.1 filed a suit for specific performance against Raja Ram complainant, which is still pending in this court of Sh.Hawa Singh Civil Judge Jr. Division, Fazilka for 23.8.2003. 4.That the complainant executed a sale deed dated 31.5.2001 in favour of Amar Dass son of Bhagwan Dass resident of Ladhuka with respect to one marla of land meant for passage. The accused No.1 applied certified copy of sale deed on dated 27.9.2001 and after receiving the copy of sale deed the accused No.1 in league and connivance as well as conspiracy with accused No.2 and 3 and typist got inserted the signatures of complainant underneath the agreement by copying the same from above said sale deed. It is very much clear that the date 28.12.2000 on which the forged and fabricated agreement was written there was no signatures of the complainant on the agreement. 5.That the complainant approached the accused persons with a request that you have forged the agreement in order to grab my share in the land but to no effect. Thereafter the complainant approached the PS City Fazilka for taking appropriate action against the accused persons but the police authorities have taken no action against the accused by saying the matter involved is pending in the civil courts and the complainant should approach the Courts accordingly. 6.That since the agreement in question is forged and fabricated at Tehsil Complex Fazilka which falls within the jurisdiction of PS City Fazilka so the Ld. Court has got jurisdiction to try and dispose of this appeal and to take cognizance of offence committed by the accused persons."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the civil proceedings, the agreement to sell in question was held to be genuinely executed between the parties. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.;