Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal complaint No.230 dated 26.08.2009, titled as Swaran Singh v. Inderjit Singh and others, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, along with summoning order dated 30.08.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran along with entire subsequent proceedings.

2. Father of petitioner had four sons namely Inderjit Singh (petitioner), Ramesh Kumar, Hardeep Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Petitioner sold one plot measuring 13½ malra out of joint land to Harbans Lal vide registered sale deed. Ramesh Kumar challenged the aforesaid sale deed in civil suit No.21 for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. Civil Court while deciding the suit gave categoric finding in para No.12 of the judgment while deciding issues No.1 and 2 collectively. Para No.12 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

“It is needless to produce arguments. The sole point involved in this case is that whether property can be sold by defendant no.1 to defendant no.2 and further from defendant no.2 to defendant no.3 legally. As far as, sale by defendant no.2 to defendant no.3 is concerned, there can be no challenge to it as defendant no.2 has sold as he has purchased from defendant No.1 So, that sale deed is perfectly alright and cannot be declared as void and fabricated document nor the plaintiff has any right to get declared it null and void. Now, the question is whether defendant no.1 can sell the property inherited from his father without getting it partitioned. The answer is yes as it is clear that Rattan Chand died without executing any will. So all his sons have become owner of the property in their respective shares. Now, it is not clear from the plaint itself that what properties were left by Rattan Chand. The sale executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant No.2 does not figure in the plaint that in what regards the sale deed was. The cosharer can sell the property which fell into his share. Even he can sell in excess of his share regarding particular property. The only remedy available for the plaintiff to go into for partition If any cosharer has sold particular property in excess of his share then he has to compensate other cosharer in other parcels of the property. Moreover, this suit is simple for declaration without seeking any relief. It is clear that possession was delivered by defendant no.1 to defendant No.2 and from defendant No.2 to defendant No.3. So it is clear that plaintiff is not in possession of property either exclusive or joint. The same has not been sought, so, suit is clearly barred under provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. Even otherwise, declaration cannot be sought to declare the sale deed executed between defendants no.1 and 2 on the ground that document is perfectly alright. The only question is regarding competency of defendant no.1 which I find that has to be seen after filing of suit for partition. Accordingly, right course for the plaintiff is to seek partition of the property and not declaration for declaring sale deeds null and void. Defendant no.1 can execute sale deed qua his share. So, he has rightly exercised his powers. Hence, both these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.”

4. Trial Court specifically held that all the sons of Rattan Chand were owners of their respective shares and the sale deed executed by Inderjit Singh (petitioner) in favour of Parveen Kumar did not figure out in the plaint. Co-sharer can sell his share rather he can even sell in excess of his share which is always subject to partition. A simple suit for declaration was not held maintainable under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the sales effected by petitioner were held genuine and only course available with the complainant was to seek partition of the property and not declaration to annul the sale deeds. The judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tarn Taran were never assailed by the complainant.

5.