J.B.GARG,J - (1.) AJIT Singh has challenged the complaint instituted by his own uncle Sohan Singh and an order framing the charge under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code dated 13.6. 1992 by Judicial Magistrate I Class, Amritsar, Annexure P-2.
(2.) THE dispute arose when Ajit Singh and Baljit Singh sons of Tara Singh the two nephews of the complainant together with four other persons namely Ajit Kaur, Balwinder Kaur, Kuljit Kaur and Harbajan Singh allegedly fabricated a general power of attorney and also manipulated a registered sale-deed dated 3.1.1989. One of the allegations was that Sohan Singh was an old man and could not go to the Sub Registrar for execution of a general power of attorney. However, subsequently, civil suit was also instituted by Sohan Singh and in that civil suit a compromise was arrived at and the price of the land was received by Sohan Singh according to the proceedings dated 26-5-1989 held in the Civil Court at Amritsar, Annexures P-4 and P5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the trial Court has ordered framing of a charge only against Ajit Singh and has discharged as many as five co-accused. Thereafter, it is an admitted fact that Sohan Singh has also died and no evidence has been recorded in the trial Court. in other words, the trial Court was not satisfied with a considerable part of the version that BaIjit Singh a brother of the petitioner, Ajit Kaur wife of the present petitioner, Ajit Singh himself, Balwinder Kaur wife of Baljit Singh another co-accused and Kuljit Kaur and Harbhajan Singh were not a party to the alleged execution of the general power of attorney dated 18-10-1988 and the sale deed dated 3-1-1989 and a connected power of attorney dated 25-4-89 and another affidavit dated 26-4-1989 and as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither any signatures nor any thumb-impression of Sohan Singh were collected and comparison obtained, the chances of success in such a case are obviously remote.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Matu Ram v. The State of Haryana and another, 1987(1) Recent C. R. 277, where, it was observed that if a dispute has been determined and adjudicated upon by a Civil Court, the continuance of the complaint may not be permitted. In the case now in hand, the civil suit was decided in the life time of Sohan Singh who was aged 73 and himself appeared in the civil Court on 26.5.1989 and has died after decision of the civil suit. He received the price of the land in the civil Court and the dispute regarding the alleged execution of a power of attorney whether if was at his own instance or not came to an end, and the present petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby accepted and the complaint (Annexure P-1) and order, dated 13-6-1992 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed.;