Surinder Gupta, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioners seek quashing of the complaint (Annexure P -1) "Bhajan Lal Vs. Kamal Parkash and others" and summoning order dated 25.08.2008 (Annexure P -4).
(2.) IN the complaint (Annexure P -1) filed by respondent, following allegations have been levelled against the petitioners: - (i) The sister of petitioner No. 1 was married in the neighbourhood of complainant, as such, he used to visit his village and developed friendship. (ii) In the year 1999, petitioner No. 1 represented the complainant that in order to save himself from the Income Tax Department, he had to show some agricultural income. The complainant, who was under the influence of petitioner No. 1, was allured to execute sale deed regarding his land in favour of petitioner No. 1 which he executed vide vasika No. 1612 dated 17.03.1999 and also leased land measuring 44 kanals in favour of petitioner No. 2 Rajesh Kumar, who is son of petitioner No. 1. The signatures of respondent were obtained on 2/3 papers. (iii) About two years before filing of complaint, the respondent asked petitioner No. 1 to get the sale deed and lease deed cancelled at which he assured to take up the matter with Tehsildar. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 took him to Tehsildar and got his signatures and thumb impressions on the papers already prepared there, on the pretext that the sale deed and lease deed were being got cancelled. (iv) On 19.06.2003, petitioner No. 1 came to the village and told the people of the village about sale of the land of respondent and thereafter the respondent came to know that in order to usurp his land, petitioner No. 1 had got forged agreement to sell dated 01.03.1999 and sale deeds dated 01.03.1999 and 15.06.2001. No payment was ever made to the respondent, as such, the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 -B Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). On presentation of complaint, the trial Court passed the order
(3.) (Annexure P -4) summoning all the petitioners. The operative part of trial Court order is reproduced as follows: - In order to prove the allegations, the complainant has appeared as PW2 and has reiterated the allegations made against the accused, and the matter was sent to the SHO, Police Station Punhana for enquiry. After the receipt of the report of the SHO to the effect that the complainant did not want to pursue the complaint, the complainant stated that he was not satisfied with the report of the police and want to lead evidence and therefore, examined Ved Ram as PW1. The complainant himself appeared as PW2 and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. PW3 -Ata Mohd. also stated that the accused has obtained the sale deeds after obtaining thumb impressions and signatures of the complainant on blank papers. PW4 -Har Chand also supported the allegations of the complainant stating that the accused had obtained the sale deeds and when they were called in the Panchayat to return the land of the complainant, they refused to do so. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on file. In view of the fact that even in the written statement filed in the Civil Suit Bhajan Lal has claimed that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and also in view of the preliminary evidence supporting the allegations made by the complainant, all the accused are ordered to be summoned to face trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 -B of IPC. Let the accused be summoned for 17.11.2008 on filing of PF, copy etc.;