The failure to prove the original agreement nullifies allegations of forgery against subsequent agreements, justifying quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing No.CRM-M- 29384-2013 titled as Dayal Singh v. State of Punjab & another and CRM-M-9171-2015 titled as Kanwaljit Singh v. State of Punjab & another as the same are arising out of the same FIR. However, for the sake of convenience the facts have been taken from CRM-M-9171-2015.

2. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.121 dated 09.06.2012 registered under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings are that Kanwaljit Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-9171-2015) entered into an agreement to sell with Dayal Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-29384-2013) with respect to land measuring 31 Kanals 12 Marlas 5 Sarsai situated at village Jagatpur Kalan on 30.06.2003 (Ex.D1 in the civil suit for specific performance filed by complainant-Bakshish Singh against the petitioners).

4. It is alleged that the petitioner-Kanwaljit Singh had also entered into an agreement to sell with the present complainant-Bakshish Singh for the said land and had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as earnest money on 29.11.2003 (Ex.P1 with the suit for specific performance).

5. A sale deed was executed by Kanwaljit Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-9171-2015) in favour of Dayal Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-29384- 2013) on 09.02.2004 (Ex.D2 with the suit for specific performance).

6. The aforementioned sale deed was challenged by way of a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.11.2003 by Bakshish Singh (plaintiff-complainant herein) in which Kanwaljit Singh (accused-petitioner in CRM-M-9171-2015) was defendant No.1 whereas Dayal Singh (accused-petitioner in CRM-M-29384-2013) was defendant No.2. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 14.03.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurdaspur (Annexure P-3) and the finding of the Court was as under:-

"27. The facts of the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff comes closure to the facts of this case and therefore, I have arrived at the conclusion that the agreement to sell exhibit D-1 and the sale deed exhibit D-2 allegedly executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 are nothing but the sham transactions and waste piece of paper whereas the agreement exhibit P-1 is found to be valid agreement. Therefore, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.2

28. In view of my findings on the issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is held entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell and not any alternative relief of money decree and therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.

Issue No.3

29. In view of my findings on the issue no.1, the suit of the plaintiff is found legally maintainable and this issue is decided in favour or the plaintiff.

Issue No.4

30. In view of my findings on the issue no.1 defendant no.2 is found to be not a bona fide purchaser as both the documents exhibit D-1 and D-2 are mere paper transactions. So, this issue is decided against defendant no.2. In view of these observations, both these documents are declared null and void and this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.

Issue No.5- Relief

31. In view of my findings on the issues mentioned above, the suit of