- (1.) By this judgment shall stand disposed off a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) preferred by petitioner Parveen Kumar alias Lucky whereby he has sought quashment of complaint No. 40 dated 4.10.2012 under section 182 IPC, Annexure P/3 against petitioner by respondents no. 2 and 3 and all consequences arising out of the same.
(2.) None has appeared for the petitioner and inspite of repeated pass overs, none has appeared for respondent no. 3. Heard Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, AAG, Punjab, for respondents no. 1 and 2 and perused the records.
(3.) The factual background of this dispute ensued when respondent no. 3 Paramjit Singh filed a complaint on 27.4.2011 against one Raman Kumar on the grounds that Raman Kumar gave false information regarding complaint Annexure P/1 leading to an inquiry by Additional Commissioner of Police-I, Ludhiana leading to initiation of proceedings under section 182 IPC Annexure P/2 and subsequent registration of calendra Annexure P/3 against Raman Kumar, Ravinder Kumar and Parveen Kumar-petitioner. The background of this dispute between two sides as per the allegations are that on 2.2.2005 Paramjeet Singh son of Late Sh. Amar Singh-respondent no. 3, Raman Kumar and Ravinder Kumar all residents of Ludhiana mortgaged a shop to Paramjeet Singh for a sum of Rs 1,40,000/-. As per this settlement, Raman Kumar was to return the amount within six months and on his failure to pay, Paramjeet Singh was to pay Rs 1000/- per month as rent of that shop. It is during the course of events, Raman Kumar started drawing rent of this shop from Paramjeet Singh. In between on 6.6.2006, an agreement between Raman Kumar and Paramjeet Singh was executed in which Raman Kumar took Rs 60,000/- and which agreement was signed by Paramjeet Singh and Raman Kumar besides two witnesses Harcharan Singh and Vijay Kumar. It was thereafter on 13.8.2010, Raman Kumar filed a complaint against Paramjeet Singh, Vijay Kumar and Harcharan Singh before the Police Commissioner of Ludhiana alleging that this agreement dated 6.6.2006 was forged by Paramjeet Singh and it did not bear his signatures and were in fact forged by Paramjeet Singh in connivance and collusion with the witnesses and it is consequent upon these allegations it transpired that the allegations levelled by the complainant in this complaint were false and hence his prosecution.;