JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is for quashing the order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and for quashing the judgment dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.07.2011, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2 got registered an FIR No.144 dated 20.07.2005 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana, alleging that accused Gurmeet Lal, in conspiracy with the present petitioner - Ravi Narang, fraudulently got a sale deed registered in the petitioner's favour with the intent to deprive her of a plot. Upon investigation, the police filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only against Gurmeet Lal and declared the petitioner innocent. However, after recording the examination-in-chief of PW-1 i.e. husband of respondent No.2, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning the petitioner and others as additional accused. The said application was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), and the revision petition challenging the said order was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 07.01.2015. Hence, this petition.

2.1. Today, Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and filed fresh Power of Attorney, which is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, relating to ownership and possession of immovable property, which has already been adjudicated upon by competent Civil Courts. The complainant's suits for possession and declaration were dismissed on merits with specific findings that she failed to prove title or enforceable rights over the property, in question. The present criminal proceedings appear to be a counterblast to those failed civil claims, amounting to misuse of criminal process. The only basis for summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a vague and uncorroborated one-line statement made by PW-1 in examination-in-chief, without cross-examination. Such a statement, especially in light of the petitioner having been declared innocent by the police and not named in the original FIR, does not meet the threshold required under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as laid down in "Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab", 2014(3) SCC 92, which requires strong and cogent evidence. Furthermore, the unexplained delay of over a year in filing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. reflects mala fide intent on the part of the complainant.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is intended to ensure that no guilty person escapes liability merely because their name was omitted at the initial stage of investigation. In the present case, the petitioner's name was specifically mentioned by a prosecution witness (PW-1), alleging fraudulent conduct in the registration of the sale deed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor charge-sheeted after investigation, and was in fact declared innocent by the investigating agency. The summoning of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is based solely on an isolated and untested statement made by PW-1 during examination-in-chief, without the b