Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh vs Rohtash And Anr on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on: 03.02.2026
Pronounced on : 30.04.2026
DALBIR SINGH .....Petitioner
Versus
ROHTASH AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present: Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Rajnikant Upadhyay, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C
for quashing of Criminal Complaint No COMI/294/2014 dated
17.12.2013 instituted on 18.12.13/24.12.13 titled “Rohtash v/s Dalbir
Singh” filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Annexure P-3)
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonepat as well as
summoning order dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure P-4) and order dated
14.08.2019 passed by Revisional court, Sonepat (Annexure P-5) and
further proceedings taken thereon.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the complainant
being owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 31 kanal 12
marlas, agreed to sell the same to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -2-
4,20,000/- per acre and in this regard, an agreement to sell was signed on
12.08.2005 in the presence of witnesses. Earnest money amounting to
Rs.1,66,000/- was also paid to the complainant’s father and date of
execution of sale deed was fixed on or before 31.03.2006. The petitioner
failed to perform his part for execution of sale deed in favour
complainant’s father and with the intervention of respectable persons, the
said agreement to sell was cancelled on 12.09.2006 and petitioner
received Rs.3,20,000/- double the amount of the earnest money after
deducting expenses of Rs.12,000/- and in this regard, a compromise and
receipt were duly prepared on the back of the previous agreement dated
12.08.2005. At the time of preparation of cancellation deed the petitioner
represented that he was returning the original agreement to sell and
receipt and on the back of the same, the cancellation deed was being
prepared. In this way, the previous agreement dated 12.08.2005 was
cancelled and compromise was written and executed in the presence of
witnesses. Despite above said cancellation deed, the petitioner filed a
civil suit for specific performance of contract dated 12.08.2005. During
evidence, the petitioner (plaintiff) produced the original agreement to sell
dated 12.08.2005 by saying that original agreement and receipt were still
in his possession and he never cancelled said agreement to sell. In this
manner petitioner defrauded the complainant and his father.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Munshi
Ram, the father of the complainant cheated the petitioner and failed to
perform his obligations inspite of legal notices dated 01.04.2008 &
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -3-
03.05.2008 and with mala fide intention chooses to remain absent on the
scheduled dates before the Sub Registrar. Petitioner filed police
complaints as well as Civil Suit no 232 of 2008 for possession by way of
specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 12.08.2005.
He contended that legal notices were issued by the petitioner regarding
execution of agreement to sell dated 12.08.2005 and the same were duly
received by Munshi Ram, the father of the complainant but he did not file
any reply to such legal notices and sold the same to one Satpal Singh and
Ram Parkash at higher prices with intention to defraud the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that complainant is taking
contrary stand i.e. on one side he is denying the fact of entering into
agreement to sell by his father by contending that such agreement to sell
was created on the thumb impressions obtained on blank papers by one
Raj Singh who acted as mediator for a deal of excavation of earth from
his fields in collusion with the petitioner and on other side he is claiming
the matter, qua agreement to sell, be settled by way of compromise.
During trial in Civil Suit, the petitioner produced the original agreement
to sell dated 12.08.2005 as Ex P1 and duly proved the same by
examining Narinder Singh, Stamp Vendor as PW2, Satbir Verma, Typist
as PW3, Rainder Singh, Notary Public as PW4, Rajesh, Attesting Witness
as PW7 besides being examined himself as PW1. He further contended
that during trial of civil suit, neither any issue regarding the genuineness
of the alleged compromise and the receipt was framed as the petitioner
while appearing specifically denied his signature on the alleged
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -4-
compromise and the receipt nor any handwriting expert was examined to
prove the signatures of the petitioner on alleged fabricated agreement to
sell.
He further contended that complainant has no locus standi
to file the present complaint as he is neither a signatory to alleged
agreement to sell nor to the compromise arrived at between the petitioner
and the complainant. Moreover, neither any complaint has been filed to
the police nor before the Civil Court during trial under section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C by the father of the complainant. Taking on
cognizance of the alleged offence is barred by virtue of section 195
Cr.P.C. Thus, petitioner has been wrongly summoned to face trial for
commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468
and 471 IPC, 1860, vide order dated 14.08.2017 by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat which is liable to be set aside as the same
has been passed without application of judicial mind in an illegal and
erroneous manner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant
contended that the father of the complainant namely Munshi Ram entered
into an agreement to sell dated 12.08.2005 with the accused/petitioner
regarding sale of agricultural land measuring 31 K-12 M and the sale
consideration was fixed as Rs. 4,20,000/- per acre and an earnest money
of Rs. 1,66,000/- was paid by the petitioner/accused to the father of
complainant and date of execution of sale deed was fixed on or before
31.03.2006. The petitioner failed to execute sale deed in his favour,
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -5-
however, a compromise was arrived at with the intervention of
respectable persons, ensuing which the above said agreement to sell was
cancelled on 12.09.2006 and the petitioner received Rs. 3,20,000/-i.e
double the amount of the earnest money after deducting expenses of Rs.
12,000/- and in this regard a compromise and receipt were duly prepared
on the back of the agreement dated 12.08.2005. In this way the
agreement to sell was cancelled and compromise was written and
executed in the presence of witnesses. It is further contended that despite
the above said cancellation deed, the accused-petitioner filed a civil suit
no. 232-2008 dated 14.06.2008 for specific performance of contract dated
12.08.2005. During evidence in that Civil Suit, the accused-petitioner
(Plaintiff) produced the original agreement to sell and receipt dated
12.08.2005 by saying that the original agreement and receipt were still in
his possession and he never cancelled the said agreement to sell. On the
other hand, at the time of preparation of the original cancellation deed the
accused-petitioner represented that he was returning the original
agreement to sell and receipt and on the back of the same the cancellation
deed was being prepared in the presence of witnesses. That in its
evidence, the father of complainant produced that agreement to sell and
receipt on back which the cancellation deed was written and the same
produced before the learned Civil Court as original and after analysing
the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court in that civil suit
reached to a conclusion vide its Judgment dated 29.10.2013 that
agreement to sell produced by complainant’s father in the civil court was
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -6-
not the original one rather it was scanned copy of the original. Learned
trial court observed that before scanning, special adhesives on the
original agreement were concealed and some old looking adhesives
removed from some other documents, were thereafter pasted on the
scanned copies for giving the look of original. Thereafter the signatures
of the stamp vendor were forged across the said adhesives. Thumb
impressions of the vendor were also forged. Learned Additional Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat vide its judgment dated 29.10.2013
dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid findings.
Moreover, the appeal filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated
29.10.2013 has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge,
Sonepat vide its judgment dated 28.03.2018. Thus, accused-petitioner has
played a fraud with the complainant and his father by supplying the
coloured scanned copies of agreement to sell and receipt dated
12.08.2005 representing it as original knowing well that said documents
were not original and relying on the assurance of accused at said
documents were original, the father of complainant paid the amount of
Rs. 3,20,000/- to the accused-petitioner and later on the accused used the
said original documents before the Court knowing well that the said
documents produced before the Court knowing well that said document
was already cancelled and used those document as genuine and sought
specific performance of said already cancelled document by filing the
civil suit. It is further contended that agreement to sell was never
executed and father of the complainant only signed/thumb marked an
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -7-
agreement for lifting the earth from his fields but the accused prepared a
false agreement to sell and grabbed the double amount on the basis of
forged agreement to sell. Accused-petitioner has also concealed the fact
of cancellation of agreement from the Civil Court and again tried to cheat
the complainant by wrongful gain and also played a fraud with the Civil
Court.
5. Heard and record perused.
6. Allegations levelled against the petitioner are that he got
written the cancellation deed on forged agreement to sell by representing
it to be the original agreement and later on filed suit for specific
performance in a Civil Court on the basis of original agreement to sell by
concealing the facts of cancellation of agreement to sell and receipt vide
which he received approximately double the amount of earnest money.
7. Petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance of
the agreement to sell, in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sonipat, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated
29/10/2013, with the findings as given below:
“13. However, on the basis of foregoing discussions, this Court
has come to the conclusion that the defendant, placing on record
scanned copies, which have been made to look like original of the
original agreement and receipt in dispute; has successfully proved the
probability that these copies were supplied to him by the vendee on the
pretext of returning originals after receiving double the amount of the
earnest money. Therefore the contract has already been rescinded by
both the parties and there can be no specific performance of a contract
which has already been rescinded by the parties. Findings of thisSONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -8-Court on this issue are absolutely returned against the plaintiff and in
favour of the defendents”
Further, petitioner assailed the aforesaid judgment by way
of preferring a Civil Appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge,
Sonepat but the same was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court
vide judgment dated 28.03.2018 while upholding the findings and
judgment of the learned trial Court.
8. Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are
mainly twofold:
A) Complaint has no locus standi to file present complaint.
B) Taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate, is barred by
virtue of section 195 read with section 340 of Cr.P.C.
9. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the complainant lacks locus standi to institute the present complaint
is found to be devoid of merit. Though it is not disputed that the
agreement to sell and the alleged compromise were executed between the
petitioner and the father of the complainant, the allegations in the
complaint, when taken at their face value, clearly disclose that the acts
attributed to the petitioner have a direct bearing on the rights and interests
of the complainant as a legal heir and the affected party. The gravamen of
the allegations is not confined merely to enforcement of a contractual
obligation but extends to the commission of cognizable offences
including cheating and forgery, which are offences against society at
large. It is well settled that in criminal jurisprudence, any person who is
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -9-
aggrieved or has knowledge of the commission of an offence can set the
criminal law in motion. Therefore, merely because the complainant was
not a signatory to the agreement in question would not render the
complaint non-maintainable, particularly when the allegations disclose
that he has been directly prejudiced by the alleged acts of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the objection regarding locus standi raised by the petitioner
is not sustainable.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak
(1984)2 SCC 500; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 1987
SUPREME COURT 877, wherein it has been consistently held that any
person can set the criminal law into motion and the issue of locus standi
is of limited relevance in criminal proceedings unless expressly barred by
statute. Hon’ble Apex court in “Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar
and others” AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 877, held that
” It is now settled law that a criminal proceeding is not a proceeding
for vindication of a private grievance but it is a proceeding initiated for
the purpose of punishment to the offender in the interest of the society.
It is for maintaining stability and orderliness in the society that certain
acts are constituted offences and the right is given to any citizen to set
the machinery of the criminal law in motion for the purpose of
bringing the offender to book. It is for this reason that in A.R. Antulay
v. R.S. Nayak, (1984)2 SCC 500, this Court pointed out that
“punishment of the offender in the interests of the society being one of
the objects behind penal statute enacted for larger good of society the
right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or
fettered by putting it into a strait jacket formula of locus standi”. This
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -10-
Court observed that locus standi of the complainant is a concept
foreign to criminal jurisprudence.”
10. Another contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that
the present complaint is hit by the embargo contained in Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is wholly untenable and deserves outright
rejection. A careful reading of the averments made in the complaint
unmistakably reveals that the substratum of the allegations pertains to the
fabrication and forgery of the agreement to sell and the consequential acts
of cheating, which are stated to have been committed much prior to the
institution of the civil proceedings and entirely dehors the precincts of the
Court. The document in question, therefore, cannot be said to have been
forged while in custodia legis or during the pendency of judicial
proceedings so as to attract the statutory bar engrafted under Section 195
Cr.P.C. In respect of present factual matrix, the agreement to sell was
entered into on 12.08.2005 and the same was cancelled on 12.09.2006.
However, suit for specific performance of contract was instituted in year
2008, thus at the time of forgery and fabrication of the cancellation deed,
the same was not in custodia legis.
10.1 It is trite law that the prohibition contemplated under Section
195 Cr.P.C. is of a limited amplitude and is attracted only in
circumstances where the offence alleged is committed with respect to a
document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a court of
law, or when such offence has a direct nexus with proceedings in Court.
Where, however, the act of forgery precedes the production of the
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -11-
document in Court, the said provision does not interdict the institution of
a complaint by a private party. The distinction between a document
forged prior to its production in Court and one fabricated during the
course of judicial proceedings is no longer res integra, having been
authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Iqbal Singh
Marwah & Anr. V. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.” AIR 2005 SC 2119,
wherein it has been held that in cases where a document is forged outside
the Court and is subsequently produced in evidence, the bar under
Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not operate. Hon’ble Apex Court in Iqbal
Singh Marwah & Anr. (supra) held as under:
“25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion
that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view
taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal
Procedure Code would be attracted only when the offences enumerated
in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document
after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any
Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.”
11. Learned Judicial magistrate while passing the impugned
summoning order, has considered preliminary evidences examined by the
complainant in support of his complaint, in which he has examined his
father as CW1, himself as CW2 and Rattan Singh, who was a signatory
to the compromise, arrived at in a Panchayat, in which earnest money
was returned to the petitioner and cancellation deed was prepared, as
CW3. A perusal of the impugned summoning order demonstrates that the
learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the same upon a due and
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -12-
conscious application of judicial mind to the facts and material available
on record. Perusal of record shows that a prima facie a case is made out
against the petitioner.
11.1 In the case of Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and others
2015 (2) RCR (Criminal) 32, a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held that at the stage of cognizance and
summoning, the Magistrate was required to apply his judicial mind only
with a view to take cognizance of the offence or, in other words, to find
out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the
accused persons or not. It was held that at this stage, the Magistrate is not
required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he
is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the
complainant because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to
find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.
In this case, the summoning order was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex
Court. The relevant findings are as under:-
“7. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint
petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as
materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the
learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion,
committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of
cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial
mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to
find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the
accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to
consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required toSONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -13-evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because
the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether
the materials will lead to conviction or not.”
In the case of Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 38 also, a similar view
was taken. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the
High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It
is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and
summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking
cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie
case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned
Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in
support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the
exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or
not Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and Ors. 2015(2) RCR (Criminal).”
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is
well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and only in rare cases, to prevent abuse
of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. The present case
does not fall within any of the well-recognized parameters warranting
interference, inasmuch as the allegations contained in the complaint,
supported by preliminary evidence, disclose the commission of
cognizable offences and require adjudication upon appreciation of
evidence at trial. Interference at this nascent stage would amount to
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40363-2019 (O&M) -14-
stifling a legitimate prosecution. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate
any patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the impugned
proceedings so as to justify exercise of inherent powers. Consequently,
the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
(SUBHAS MEHLA)
JUDGE
Pronounced on: 30.04.2026
Sonia Puri
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
SONIA PURI
2026.04.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
