(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:15)

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.69556 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 Anand Mishra ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present: Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the quashing of FIR No.503, dated 05.08.2024, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad, Haryana. Further prayer has been made for staying the proceedings before the learned trial Court during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Joginder Pal Babbar. It was alleged that brother of the complainant, namely, Mangat Lal Babbar had purchased a property, i.e. Plot No.15-16, Block E1, Sector 11, Faridabad from P. Shankar on 06.12.1985 and paid a consideration amount of Rs.1,24,820/-. It was alleged that elder brother of the complainant, namely, Mangat Lal Babbar sold the said property to the complainant on 09.02.1989 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,87,250/- and all the documents were transferred in his name and thus, the complainant was the sole owner of the abovesaid plot. It was alleged that father of the complainant died on 11.01.1986 and his brother, namely, Mangat Lal Babbar died on 16.08.1990. On the death of his father and brother, the complainant went in depression and thus, was unable to take care of the property. Thereafter the complainant went to the Municipal Council office, Faridabad to obtain the property ID and then, he discovered that the ID was already in someone else’s name. The complainant obtained a certified copy of his property ID from the Sub Registrar’s office, Ballabgarh, which revealed that Sunaina Mishra, Anand Mishra and others conspired with each other and created forged and false documents, and fraudulently transferred his property in the name of Sunaina Mishra through Sr. No.1993, dated 09.06.2023 and thus, committed a fraud. The complainant discovered that P. Shankar had already expired on 26.11.2015 and despite that, a fake Power of Attorney was made in favour of Sunaina Mishra 10 months after the death of P. Shankar. It was found in Column No.17 of the sale deed that P. Shankar was still alive. The complainant, thus, prayed to take legal action against the accused, who conspired to usurp his property by committing fraud with him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case only on account of being the husband of purchaser, namely, Sunaina Mishra. He has submitted that neither the petitioner has been attributed any act of forgery, impersonation or fabrication nor any document has been shown to be prepared, signed or procured by him. He has submitted that the petitioner is not the purchaser and he has no role in execution of documents, verification of title, meeting sellers or handling the alleged GOA or death certificates. He has submitted that as per the police investigation, fake documents were prepared by other co-accused and not by petitioner. He has submitted that the documents given by the complainant were found to be fake. He has submitted that the petitioner simply accompanied his wife for property visit, registry process and verification. He has further submitted that prima facie, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner. He has submitted that the present FIR being nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, deserves to be quashed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Sumit Jai