Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is seeks quashing of FIR No. 44 dated 5.6.2004, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 511, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Kurali, District Ropar at the instance of respondent No. 2 Parminder Kaur. The allegations contained in the impugned FIR are that the petitioner along with one Shamsher Singh obtained her signatures as well as of her husband on some blank papers under the pretext of getting some loan sanction from the bank, in order to provide, them financial assistance, since they were in need at that time as her husband was suffering from cancer and died later on. Both of them later on converted those papers into an agreement to sell dated 28.8.2002 of the house of the complainant.
(2.) IT has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the agreement to sell in question is a genuine document for consideration, for which a civil suit has already been preferred by the petitioner for specific performance against respondent No. 2 and that apart there is a delay of about 2 years in registration of the FIR, since the agreement to sell in question is of 28.8.2002 while the impugned FIR, has been registered on 5.6.2004. The arguments have been scanned. It is settled that mere delay is no ground to Squash any criminal proceedings. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction of quashing of the FIR, but the same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and has only to be exercised in rarest and exceptional cases. The authenticity of the agreement to sell in question is yet to be ascertained, which can only be done during the course of evidence. The court is not required to determine disputed questions of fact, at this stage.
(3.) MOREOVER , mere filing of the civil suit gives no ground for quashing of criminal proceedings as the allegations in the criminal trial need to be independently established. A reference in this regard can be made to dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Krishan v. : 2001CriLJ4705 . That apart, petitioner has already been charge -sheeted by the learned trial court and the revision preferred against that order has also been dismissed by the revisional court and it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P., 2007 (3) R.C.R. (CrI.) 779, that question of quashing of FIR does not arise where the charges have been framed.;