Judgment 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the criminal complaint, Annexure P1 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 17-10-1997, Annexure P2. 2. The aforesaid complaint was filed by Col. (Retd.) Prithipal Singh Malik, who is now said to have died and the same is presently being prosecuted by his legal heirs. 3. In the complaint, it was alleged that plot No. 1381, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh was purchased by the complainant from Chandigarh Administration and at that time, he was residing at Delhi. Amritpal Singh (impleaded as accused No. 1 in the complaint) approached him at Delhi as he was interested to purchase the said plot. Accordingly, an agreement to sell was arrived at on 23-5-1988. The total sale consideration of the plot was agreed upon to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid by said Amritpal Singh to the complainant at Delhi. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid by Amritpal Singh and to safeguard this amount, condition No. 3 was specifically incorporated in the agreement itself. On the same day, power of attorney, affidavits etc. were got signed from the complainant at Delhi. These documents were, however, undated. The said power of attorney was in favour of Mrs. Chamanjit wife of Amritpal Singh and Rajinder Pal Singh son of Trilochan Singh (impleaded as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint). 4. The complainant averred that the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was misappropriated by Amritpal Singh and other two accused persons, regarding which F.I.R. No. 24 dated 5-2-1996 u/S. 406 of the IPC was lodged at Police Station, South, Chandigarh and a civil suit for recovery was also filed, which was said to be pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh. 5. It was further averred that in September, 1996, the complainant visited the Estate Officer (Building Branch), Chandigarh and came to know that the petitioners and Amritpal Singh had dishonestly and fraudulently executed and signed the deeds/instruments regarding the transfer of the said property in their favour. These allegations were contained elaborately in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the complaint, which are extracted below : "3. These allegations were contained elaborately in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the complaint, which are extracted below : "3. That in September, 1996, complainant visited the Estate Officer (Building Branch) and came to know that all the records with the common intention dishonestly all fraudulently signed and executed the deed instruments regarding the transfer of property and further fabricated certain documents with the motive to create interest thereupon and forged documents to show that the property had been transferred. The signatures of the complainant have been forged by all the accused on the affidavit showing the residence of the complainant at House No. 2222, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. Affidavit has been attested as identified by the Executive Magistrate on 2-6-1988. On the said date, the complainant never appeared before the Executive Magistrate or before any authority nor appended his signatures. In fact this document was never executed by the complainant. The complainant, at no point of time resided at House No. 2222, Sector 15-C, Chd., but in fact the accused was resident of the said house. On the same date, another indemnity bond has been placed on the record of the Building Branch of the Estate Office showing the signatures of the complainant at page No. 2. No such document was ever executed. The signatures of the complainant have been forged on the said document also. Again the complainant has been shown to be the resident of 2222, Sector15-C, Chd. Similarly, the signatures of the complainant have also been forged on the site plan. Complainant never appeared before Shamsher and associates architect nor engaged him at any given time. In the Estate Office record, there is one letter from Shamsher and associates architect showing the signatures of complainant on two sheets and on both the sheets signatures have been forged. 4. That all the accused dishonestly and fraudulently made the false statement relating to the consideration and executed and became parties to the instrument and the deed, in question. Photo copies of the same are annexed herewith. All these documents contain a false statement relating to consideration, and they have acted dishonestly and fraudulently. All the accused have acted dishonestly and fraudulently. All the documents with the intent to cause damage to the State Exchequer as well as to the complainant and filed false claims. Photo copies of the same are annexed herewith. All these documents contain a false statement relating to consideration, and they have acted dishonestly and fraudulently. All the accused have acted dishonestly and fraudulently. All the documents with the intent to cause damage to the State Exchequer as well as to the complainant and filed false claims. These documents have been forged with the intention of causing it to be believed that such documents have been made and signed and executed by the complainant whereas factually the complainant never executed these documents and his signatures have been forged. Hence the accused have committed offences under Section 423 as well as offence under Section 463 as others as detailed in Chapter 18, i.e. offences relating to documents etc. of the I. P. C. with common intention i.e. read with Section 120-B of I. P. C." 6. The complainant led his preliminary evidence and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh summoned the petitioners and Amritpal Singh vide order dated 17-10-1997 to stand trial for the offences punishable under Sections 423, 467, 471 read with Section 120-B of the I. P. C. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant could not take recourse to the present complaint as he had already lodged F. I. R. No. 24 dated 5-2-1996 under Section 406 of the I. P. C. against the petitioners and Amritpal Singh on the similar allegations and the said matter was enquired into. However, the trial Court, vide its order dated 23-10-2003, discharged the petitioners and Amritpal Singh by categorically holding that no criminal liability was attracted. He submitted that the said order was never challenged by the complainant and, therefore, the complaint was essentially an abuse of the process of law because it pertained to the similar allegations and the same transaction. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the complainant contended that in the F. I. R., a grievance had been made only regarding the amount of Rs. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the complainant contended that in the F. I. R., a grievance had been made only regarding the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which were paid to the petitioners and Amritpal Singh alleging that the offence under Section 406 of the I. P. C. had been committed by them, but in the present complaint, the allegations that have been made against the accused persons are that they had fraudulently created documents by forgery on the basis of which the property was transferred by the officials of the Estate Office, Chandigarh in their favour and since the complaint discloses a cause of action which is distinct from the allegations that were made in the F. I. R., it had no concern with the same and it has (to) be answered independently. He submitted that once the complaint and the evidence on record, prima facie, disclose the commission of some offence, the petitioners could not pray for quashing of the same. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The petitioners have tried to project that it was a case where there was a dispute regarding the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- and which, according to them, was essentially a dispute of civil nature and the civil suit had been rightly filed and it was because of this grievance of non-payment of Rupees 2,00,000/-, that the complainant resorted to the filing of the F. I. R. and also the complaint which are on similar lines, and therefore, the proceedings ought to be quashed. 11. I am afraid, the contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are hollow. In the complaint, the complainant categorically stated that the documents have been forged on the basis of which the property was transferred in the name of the petitioners and Amritpal Singh even though there was a serious dispute about the remaining amount of sale consideration which was never paid forcing him to file the F. I. R. and a civil suit. The civil suit has, till date, not been satisfied. 12. A perusal of the complaint and the summoning order shows that the complainant has been successful in bringing some evidence on record to show that there is complicity of the petitioners and Amritpal Singh in the commission of the alleged offences. 13. The civil suit has, till date, not been satisfied. 12. A perusal of the complaint and the summoning order shows that the complainant has been successful in bringing some evidence on record to show that there is complicity of the petitioners and Amritpal Singh in the commission of the alleged offences. 13. In this view of the matter, when the complaint disclosed sufficient cause of action, the quashing of the proceedings would be totally unwarranted. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh was absolutely right in summoning the petitioners and Amritpal Singh on the basis of material before him. The F. I. R. and the complaint dis- close two distinct offences and under no circumstance, can they be termed to be the same merely because their genesis and origin are from the same transaction. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.