- (1.) THREE petitions captioned above have been taken up together as a common relief has been claimed in these three petitions seeking quashing of FIR No.52 dated 11.3.2011 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the complaint of respondent no.2 Rajiv Chanana.
(2.) RESPONDENT No.2 preferred a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh which was sent to Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh to register the FIR under order of the Court against petitioners Surinder Kumar Nagpal, Sanjeev Nagpal, Gauri daughter of Surinder Kumar Nagpal (divorced wife of complainant), Sushma Wahi and P.Kumar.
(3.) FOR the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from petition No.CRM -M -15126 -2012 and the reference of the documents shall be made as appended with this petition. There are five petitioners in these three petitions reference to them shall be made as follows: - 1. Surinder Kumar Nagpal as petitioner No.1, 2. Sanjeev Nagpal as petitioner No.2, 3. Gauri as petitioner No.3, 4. Sushma Wahi as petitioner No.4 and 5. P. Kumar as petitioner No.5. The reference to the complainant shall be made as respondent No.2. The allegations levelled in the complaint, in brief, are that Surinder Kumar Nagpal, Sanjeev Nagpal and Vishav Kant Nagpal were the joint owners of industrial -shed No.99, Industrial Area, Phase -I, Chandigarh. The mental condition of Vishav Kant Nagpal was not sound. As such, he was financially dependent on his elder brother Surinder Nagpal. petitioner No.2 Sanjeev Nagpal was in possession of main gate entry area adjoining to industrial -shed No.98 measuring 37 feet 9 inches X 178 feet (37'9" X 178') which comprises of two big rooms and a small kitchen on the first floor and an open verandah. He was running a factory in the name and style of M/s Washwell Metals and M/s Varun Enterprises. The rest of the industrial -shed was in possession of petitioner No.1 towards industrial -shed No.100. Respondent No.2 was already in possession of rooms on the ground floor in the portion occupied by petitioner No.1 adjoining industrial -shed No.100. Due to financial crisis petitioner No.2 wanted to sell his share in the industrial -shed and on persuasion by his father -in -law (petitioner No.1), respondent No.2 agreed to purchase area measuring 37'9" X 178', which was in occupation of petitioner No.2, vide agreement dated 11.06.2003 (Annexure -A). Petitioner No.2 was owner of 1/3rd share in the total area of the industrial -shed, which is approximately 74' X 178'. But keeping in view the fact that their brother was not in physical possession of the property, the area of the plot agreed to be sold was mentioned as 37'9" X 178' in the agreement. The total sale consideration was of Rs.20 lacs out of which an amount of Rs.5 lacs was paid in cash at the time of agreement to sell and the remaining amount was paid by an account payee cheque No.720211 dated 20.06.2003 drawn at HDFC Bank. It was mentioned in the agreement that property was free from all sorts of incumbrances.;