The court held that the petitioner's actions, including receiving money from the fraudulent transaction and filing a suit to claim possession of the property, demonstrated his direct involvement in the scheme to defraud Meenu Vaid of her property.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this revision petition is for setting-aside the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh in a case bearing No.PCH No.3539 of 2017 titled as CBI v. Jatinder Singh Birgi and another , vide which the trial Court has dismissed the application for discharge filed by the petitioner in FIR No.16 (RCCHG2016A0016) dated 29.07.2016 registered under Sections 120- B, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) at Police Station CBI/ACB, Chandigarh.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Raj Kumar Bhatia, who is a practicing Advocate along with one Jatinder Singh Birgi are facing the criminal prosecution in the aforesaid FIR No.16 (RCCHG2016A0016) dated 29.07.2016, which was registered after an investigation/enquiry was conducted in compliance of the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13471 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3504/2015, which was filed by the petitioner himself.

3. The order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Honble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:-

' Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of an order dated 29th November, 2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby Civil Revision no.8078 of 2014 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and an order dated 14th November, 2014 passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing a petition under Section 192(1) read with Section 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 affirmed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below for the view taken in the same is legally unexceptionable. Even so we cannot keep observing that the facts giving rise to the present litigation and connected legal proceedings present a sordid story of what prima facie appears to us to be a case of fabrication of valuable documents used and/or attempted to be used in judicial proceedings only with a view to somehow grabbing or falsely claiming title to what is doubtless a piece of valuable property bearing No.1149 in Sector 8-C of the City of Chandigarh.

The appellant before us happens to be a practicing advocate from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. He claims to have developed familiarity with late Ms. Meenu Vaid D/o Gurcharan Das Vaid, resident of House No.1149, Section 8-C, Chandigarh, owner of the disputed property sometime in March 2011. His case is that he was looking for a house on rent when he happened to meet the said Ms. Meenu Vaid. It is his further case that Ms. Meenu Vaid expressed a desire to execute a will in regard to her house in favour of one Jatinder Singh Birgi-respondent no.5 in these proceedings. The appellant's version is that in keeping with the wishes of the deceased Ms. Meenu Vaid, he scribed a will dated 16th March, 2011, which operated on the demise of Ms. Meenu Vaid just a week later on 21st March, 2011.

The appellant claims that in terms of the will prepared by him, on the instructions of the deceased Ms. Vaid, the property in-question has devolved upon Jatinder Singh Birgi. It is also the appellant's case that the house in-question was originally owned by late Mr. Gurucharan Das Vaid, father of Ms. Meenu Vaid who passed away on 7th July, 2004 leaving behind a will dated 22nd May, 1987 executed jointly by Gurucharan Das Vaid and his wife- Smt. Shanta Vaid and duly registered with the Sub- Registrar at Chandigarh. The will bequeathed the entire property owned by the couple including the house indispute in favour of their only daughter Ms. Meenu Vaid. That is precisely how Ms. Meenu Vaid-deceased had according to the appellant acquired ownership over the said property upon the demise of Mr. Gurucharan Das Vaid, the original owner.

The appellant's further case is that certain unscrupulous