1.0 Petitioner is the original accused. He seeks quashing of the complaint at Annexure-A , bearing I-C.R. No. 57 of 2007, dated 15.07.2007, filed before Muli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that no offence is disclosed qua the present petitioner.
2.0 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant, who is mother of the present petitioner, has also instituted a Civil Suit, therefore, the present complaint is purely of a civil nature. He, further, submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true, no offence is made out.
2.1 He relied on a decision of of the Apex Court, in the case of Ramesh Dutt & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others , reported in (2009)15 SCC 429.
2.2 He lastly submitted that this Court has admitted the quashing petition of other two co-accused and also granted stay, by an order dated 23.08.2010.
3.0 I have heard learned Counsel for the respondent also.
4.0 Upon perusal of the impugned complaint and the other material on record, I find that no case for quashing is made out qua the present petitioner. It is true that the quashing petition of two co-accused have been admitted. However, there is vital difference in the role attributed to the present petitioner and that of other co-accused.
4.1 In the complaint, the mother of the petitioner alleged inter alia that certain immovable properties, which is in the joint name of the petitioner herein, who is original accused No.1, were disposed of by the petitioner, by filing a false affidavit and presenting the same before the Mamlatdar and got her name deleted from the Revenue Record. It is further alleged that, though, she was equal co-sharer in the said property, petitioner misguiding her that for the purpose of income tax, she will have to make affidavit and with such representation obtained her signature thereon. She, however, later on realized that the said affidavit was not for the purpose of income tax, but, fur the purpose of disposing of the immovable property, the agricultural land. On these allegations, the complaint is based.
4.2 The allegations made in the complaint, if taken on face value, they do constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code. It, therefore, cannot be said that, even if allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true, no offence is made out. Role of the present petitioner vis-a-vis other co-accused, in the complaint itself, is very different. It is, Prima faice, found that the other two co-accused, who are the wife and daughter of the present petitioner respectively, have not been attributed any specific role, in the commission of the said offence. Therefore, their quashing petition was admitted and the stay was granted qua them. Present petitioner cannot get benefit of such an order.
5.0 This petition, therefore, fails and is DISMISSED.
5.1 Despite this order, needless to say, it is always open to the parties to explore the possibilities of settlement, particularly, when the original complainant has passed away and the dispute survives between the 'real brothers'. If need be, the parties can seek assistance of Mediation Centre at the District or at the High Court, level.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Umesh/ Top