Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 420 (PNJ)

Preetam Singh v. Sajjan Singh

2002-04-22

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing the complaint and the summoning order, Annexures P2 and P3, respectively. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant Sajjan Singh filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, against the present petitioner and others, to the effect that he (the complainant) had been in possession of two Taurs situated in village Sandhar Jagir, Tehsil & District Kapurthala, for the last more than 30 years. It has been further averred that all the accused fabricated and forged a partition deed by signing in the name of the complainant, although the complainant did not know how to sign as he was an illiterate man. Thus, according to the complainant, the deed of partition had been forged by accused-petitioner in connivance with other accused, who all belonged to the same party. It had further been averred that the document had been fabricated after the complainant filed a civil suit, showing it to have been prepared on May 26, 1986. 3. Mr. R.K. Handa, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that prior to the filing of the complaint, the complainant had filed a suit for permanent injunction on November 27, 1990 (P1), restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property. The counsel contends that the suit property in the Civil suit as well as in the complaint is the same, i.e., two Taurs situated in village Sandhar Jagir. The counsel has placed on record copy of the judgment of the Senior Sub Judge, Kapurthala, rendered on February 2, 1994, wherein the Court has observed that the memo. of partition (Ex.D2) is not a forged document and was executed by all the co- sharers, including the plaintiff (complainant), in which Taur `B fell to the share of Pritam Singh-petitioner. The counsel contends that once there is a finding by the Civil Court that the document in question is not a forged document, the present complaint as well as the summoning order (Annexures P2 and P3) are liable to be quashed. 4. I have perused the complaint as well as the finding recorded by the Senior Sub Judge, Kapurthala, and find that the Civil Court has clearly opined that the Memo. of Partition is not a forged document. 4. I have perused the complaint as well as the finding recorded by the Senior Sub Judge, Kapurthala, and find that the Civil Court has clearly opined that the Memo. of Partition is not a forged document. The averments in the complaint are the same as were raised before the Civil Court. As there is a Civil Court decree on the same issue, in favour of the petitioner, wherein clear finding has been given that the memo. of partition is not a forged document, in these circumstances it is not proper to allow the complaint to proceed any further. It has been held in Matu Ram v. The State of Haryana and anr., 1987(1) RCR 277, that where the allegations are with regard to the forgery and manipulation of the revenue record and the record is the same before the Civil Court as well as in the complaint and the civil court having already adjudicated upon the same, holding that there is no manipulation or forgery of any document, then in that event it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to permit the Criminal Court to continue with the complaint against the petitioner. In the present case the allegations in the Civil suit as well as in the complaint are the same. The Civil Court having already adjudicated upon the genuineness of the memo. of partition, therefore, the same cannot be made a ground to proceed against the petitioner before the Criminal Court. 5. In these circumstances, I allow the petition, and quash the complaint (Annexure P-2) and the summoning order (Annexure P-3), both dated April 27, 1984, being an abuse of the process of law. Petition allowed.