Sukhpal Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1555 P&H

CRM-M-44064-2015 (O&M)                                               -1-


202    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRM-M-44064-2015 (O&M)
                                              Decided on : 24.01.2023

Sukhpal Kaur & others                                      ...... Petitioners

                                   Versus

State of Punjab and another                                ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :   Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

                          ****

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)

Petitioners are seeking quashing of Complaint

No.38/1/09.05.2009 under Sections 418/420/423/424/465/467/468/471/

120-B IPC along with the order dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure P-2) vide

which they were summoned to face trial by JMIC, Ludhiana and

consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

totally false and fabricated allegations have been levelled against them in

the complaint dated 09.05.2009 (Annexure P-1) with an oblique motive to

harass and humiliate them. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner

No.2 was also one of the beneficiaries of the judgment and decree dated

27.01.1987, after the death of his father, Gurbachan Singh. Therefore,

petitioner No.3 had executed sale deed dated 09.02.2007 in favour of

1 of 3

CRM-M-44064-2015 (O&M) -2-

petitioner No.1 only to the extent of his share. Hence, no loss or prejudice

had been caused to respondent No.2 as her share remained intact and

untouched. It has been further contended that respondent No.2 herself

admitted in her written statement filed in a civil suit instituted by petitioner

No.2 -Gurjit Singh that land falling in khasra No.785 stood partitioned

between her and petitioner No.2. Learned counsel has lastly vehemently

asserted that even if for the sake of arguments the allegations made in the

complaint were taken to be gospel truth, they would not constitute any

offence.

Per contra, learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the

instant petition by urging that the land falling in Khasra No.785 had been

transferred in favour of petitioner No.1 by petitioner No.3 by way of a

forged and fabricated sale deed wherein there was no recital qua the

pendency of the execution proceedings. Hence, there was sufficient

evidence on record to show the dishonest intention of the petitioners to

defraud respondent No.2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant

material available on record.

It needs to be reiterated that if on due application of mind to the

allegations made in the complaint and other material on record, the

Magistrate finds sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, then

process can be issued under Section 204 Cr.PC. At this stage, only a prima

facie satisfaction has to be arrived at by the Magistrate qua the commission

of the offence(s) alleged and not whether there exists sufficient grounds for

the conviction of the accused or not.

                                        2 of 3

 CRM-M-44064-2015 (O&M)                                          -3-

In the instant case, admittedly, the land falling in Khasra

No.785 (detailed in para 1 of the complaint) was transferred by petitioner

No.3 in favour of petitioner No.1 during the pendency of the execution

proceedings of judgment and decree dated 27.01.1987. A perusal of the sale

deed dated 09.02.2007 (Annexure P-3) reveals it is absolutely silent qua the

pendency of execution proceedings.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, prima facie there

does exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners.

Whether the allegations levelled are false or not would be a

matter of trial, which cannot be delved into either by this Court or by the

Magistrate at this stage. Since the Magistrate has rightly exercised its

discretion while issuing process, this Court would loathe to interfere much

less examine the authenticity of the allegations levelled by the respondent-

complainant.

As a sequel to above, this Court does not deem it appropriate to

invoke its inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the

complainant as well as summoning order (Annexures P-1 and P-2

respectively) in question. Accordingly, the present petition stands

dismissed.

                                              (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
                                                      JUDGE
24.01.2023
sonia

             Whether speaking/reasoned:             Yes/No
             Whether reportable :                   Yes/No




                                     3 of 3