IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-312-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 09.01.2025 Pradeep Gupta ...Petitioner(s)

Versus Anil Kochar ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate, Mr. Devaki Anand Sullar, Advocate, and Mr. Haneesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) praying for quashing of the summoning order dated 11.01.2024 (P-1) , passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram (for short, ‘JMIC’), in complaint No.COMI/231/2023 dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), titled as “Anil Kochar Vs. Smt. Mamta Kaul and others” and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Contends that co-accused, namely, Mamta Kaul, had engaged the petitioner, only to provide legal assistance for the purpose of vetting the agreement to sell, which she intended to execute with respondent-complainant. Further contends that petitioner’s signatures on the alleged agreement to sell dated 11.12.2021 (P-2) as a witness have been forged by the respondent-complainant. Also contends that petitioner was not present at the time of execution of alleged agreement to sell, nor he had signed the agreement to sell as a witness; rather he has been falsely implicated by the respondent-complainant. Lastly contends that at best, it is a civil dispute, which has been given the colour of criminal nature. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited the following judicial pronouncements:-

1. Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh, (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 699.

2. Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013)

11 Supreme Court Cases 673.

3. Vesa Holdings Private Limited and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 293;

4. Dilip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2021, decided on 19.01.2021.

5. Kunti and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 109.

6. Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603.

7. Charanjit Sharma and another Vs. State of Punjab and others (P&H), CRM-M-47809-2018, decided on 15.11.2023.

8. A.M. Mohan Vs. The State Represented by SHO And Another, Criminal Appeal No.1716 of 2024, decided on

20.03.2024.

9. Radheyshyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No.13675 of 2023, decided on

22.07.2024.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book.

4. It transpires that respondent-complainant had filed complaint under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC with the allegations that petitioner along with other co-accused cheated him to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/-, on the pretext of selling property in question vide agreement to sell dated 11.12.2021. During preliminary stage, in support of above allegations, the respondent-complainant examined himself as CW-1; witness Vikas Tandon as CW-2 and also tendered some documents, including agreement to sell in question.

4.1. Learned JMIC, on the basis of oral and documentary material placed on the record, summoned the petitioner along with co-accused to face trial under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC vide the order impugned dated 11.01.2024 and for reference, relevant part of the same is recapitulated as under:-

“13. A perusal of the entire documentary evidence available on record shows that the accused No. 1 Mamta Kaul entered into agreement to sell Ex.CW1/A for sale of property in question. In the said agreement it was mentioned that the property in question was in the joint name of Sh. Sanjay Kaul and Smt. Mamta Kaul and after Lt. Sh. Sanjay Kaul expired, his legal heirs are his wife Mamta Kaul and dau Sanskriti. It was also mentioned that Mamta Kaul had convinced that she would do all legal formalities to get the