SURAT SINGH Vs. DALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of complaint, Annexure P.3 as well as criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the trial Court. In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this case are :

(2.) THAT Dalwinder Singh, respondent No. 1 agreed to sell his land measuring 11 K 3 M in favour of respondent No. 3 vide agreement dated 13-7-1985 for a sale consideration of Rs. 39,000/- Respondent No. 1 received Rs. 34,000/- out of the said sale consideration. On 11.3.1986, both respondents No. 1 and 3 came to Amloh for getting the Sale Dead. executed. They purchased stamp papers worth Rs. 4,800/-. The sale deed was scribed by Som Nath, Deed Writer and was signed by respondent No. 1 in taken of its correctness. Respondent No. 1 then slipped away and did not appear before re the Sub-Registrar for registration of the Sale Deed. Subsequently, Dalwinder Singh appealed before the Sub-Registrar, and stated that he did not wish to get the sale deed registered. This matter was referred to Registrar, Patiala, who vide has order dated 20.6.1986 directed that the sale dead be registered. Consequently, the said sale deed was duly registered on 17-7-1986. In mutation proceedings, Dalwinder Singh entered into a compromise, admitted the title of Gora Lal, and delivered physical possession of the land at the time, when said mutation was sanctioned on 8-9-1986. The present complaint was filed on 25-3-1987. Therein the allegations were made that Gora Lal including the present petitioners having common intention with each other with a view to cause illegal loss to the complainant, forged an agreement, purporting to be an agreement to sell the land in question. After recording preliminary evidence, both the petitioners as well as Gora Lal, respondent No. 3 were summoned as accused. After recording evidence, charge under Section 467 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioners and their co-accused Gora Lal.

(3.) ON behalf of Dalwinder Singh, respondent No. 1 it was submitted that since specific allegations are there in the complaint itself that the present petitioners were also involved in committing a forgery. The facts patent on the record are that there is no legal evidence on the file for framing charge under Section 467 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, inasmuch as the complainant has not said a word in this regard in his statement. Mere allegation in the complaint against the present petitioners cannot be considered sufficient material for framing charge against the petitioners under Section 461 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.