IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.
MISC.
No.M-29345 OF2012(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 13th JANUARY, 2014 Gulshan Kumar ….
Petitioner Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh & another ….
Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA **** Present : Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.J.S.
Toor, APP UT Chandigarh.
None for respondent no.2.
**** SURINDER GUPTA, J.
(ORAL) CRM No.56336 & 56337 of 2012 The applications are allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case Harpreet Singh-respondent no.2 got registered an FIR No.184 dated 13.10.2009 for offence under Sections 199, 200, 419, 448, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sector-19, Chandigarh with the allegations of trespass, cheating and forgery against Mohinder Pal Singh and otheRs.However, the petitioner was not named therein.
In the FIR the complainant leveled the allegations as follows: CRL.
MISC.
NO.M-29345 OF2012-2- “I Harpreet Singh Mann son of late Surjit Singh Mann legal owner of House No.27 sector 19A, Chandigarh residing in G-81 Maszid Math, GK2, New Delhi-48.
On July 5 2009 I had complained to the police about some persons having illegally trespassed on my property after breaking locks.
Now I have come to know that Mohinder Pal Singh resident of 2601, Jain Nagar, Karala, Delhi along with some subordinates had posed as owner, prepared fake documents and illegally try to do transaction of my property H.No.27 Sector 19A, Chandigarh.
By this written complaint I would request you to take strict action against Mohinder Pal Singh and his subordinates.
I would recognize them on their physical presence also.
Take action against his other allies namely Pankaj Kumar son of Kalicharan H.No.7 Block B Sector 14 Punjab University Roopesh son of K.S.House No.15, Hem Bihar, Baltana Punjab working as property dealer in Panchkula.”
.
During the investigation it transpired that Mohinder Pal Singh had submitted an indemnity bond to get the disputed property i.e.H.No.27, Sector 19A, Chandigarh in his name.
On this indemnity bond petitioner- Gulshan Kumar had signed as witness.
He was arrested on 22.04.2012.
The main accused Mohinder Pal Singh could not be arrested and has been declared proclaimed offender.
The police presented the challan against the CRL.
MISC.
NO.M-29345 OF2012-3- remaining accused for offences under Sections 199, 200, 419, 448, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
Counsel for the parties have been heard and paper book has been perused.
It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that Mohinder Pal Singh has given an indemnity bond to the Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh on which Gulshan Kumar-petitioner had signed as witness, in order to get the property of complainant transferred in his name.
As the petitioner was a conspirator with Mohinder Pal Singh, challan has been filed against him for offence under Section 120-B IPC.
Mohinder Pal Singh applied for transfer of ownership of H.No.27, Sector 19A, Chandigarh on the basis of the registered Will of his father late Sardar Surjit Singh dated 12.07.1991.
As per the requirement of the Estate Office, he submitted an indemnity bond taking the responsibility for any loss suffered by the Estate Officer or any other employees due to transfer of that property.
During the couRs.of the arguments, this fact has been admitted that the petitioner is neither the beneficiary nor is witness to any of the document alleged to have been forged in the case for which the chargesheet has been filed for offence under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.
There is no allegation that he had ever trespassed the disputed property or committed any act of cheating, misrepresentation or had made any false statement/declaration.
It has also been admitted that immediately after coming to know of the dispute in between the parties the petitioner submitted CRL.
MISC.
NO.M-29345 OF2012-4- application on 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-2) to the Estate Officer to cancel his witness on the indemnity bond.
The civil litigation in between the parties regarding the ownership of the H.No.27, Sector 19A, Chandigarh, is pending.
The petitioner is not related to either party or is a beneficiary.
A fact that the petitioner has signed the indemnity bond, furnished by Mohinder Pal Singh, as witness do not reflect his connivance to do any illegal act or that he has taken part in any conspiracy.
The learned State counsel has not pointed out any other incriminating evidence against the petitioner.
Even otherwise, he within a span of less than one month of furnishing of the indemnity bond, had intimated the Estate Officer that his witness on the indemnity bond be treated as cancelled.
The facing of trial will result in unnecessary harassment and agony to the petitioner, particularly when no prima facie case is made out against him and he has not even been named in the FIR.
Keeping in view all the fact narrated above, instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR No.184 dated 13.10.2009, is quashed qua the petitioner along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
13th JANUARY, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA) GUPTA) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2014.01.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh