JUDGMENT
M.M. Aggarwal, J.
1. This petition was filed by Ajit Singh for quashing on the allegations that the charges had been framed against him and others vide order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar. The petitioner had filed a civil suit and that suit was decided in his favour to the effect that he did not execute any mortgage deed. In the civil suit filed by him, it had been held that he did not take any loan nor had executed the mortgage deed, which was forged and fabricated document. The suit was decreed by the Civil Court on 26.11.1998 and therefore, the proceedings against him cannot continue.
2. It appears that a case F.I.R. No. 33 dated 22.3.1997 under Sections 419/420/465/468/471/120-B IPC at P.S. City Muktsar had been registered. Vide order dated 11.4.2002 the C.J.M., Muktsar had directed the charges to be framed and then the following charges had been framed:
“That you all entered into criminal conspiracy to defend (defraud) the Punjab Land Mortgage Bank, Muktsar of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy on 28.6.1994, your co-accused Sukhdev Singh since P.O. impersonated as you Ajit Singh and his photo was wrongly attested by you Jarnail Singh member and the said Sukhdev Singh as identified as Ajit Sigh by other co-accused Mukhtiar Singh since deceased and that you Jarnail Singh and Ajit Singh presented a forged document to wet application for membership and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C., whereas you others committed an offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C. and within my cognizance.
2. That on the same date, place and time you all used as genuine this forged document (admission form) thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C.
3. That on the same date and time the documents for admission was prepared for use for cheating and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 I.P.C.
4. That on 8.8.94 the receipt for Rs. 1,20,000/- paid to Ajit Singh was obtained by Sukhdev Singh (P.O.) posing as Ajit Singh and he was identified by you Lakhwinder Singh and Avtar Singh and that you all thereby prepared this forged receipt and committed offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 120-B I.P.C.
5. That on the same date place and time, you all prepared this receipt for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 I.P.C.
6. That on the same date, place and time, you all used this forged receipt as genuine and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C.
7. That in order to withdraw the money your co-accused Sukhdev Singh (PO) opened a bank account where the said Sukhdev Singh was identified as Ajit Singh by you Mander Singh and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. and you others committed offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. and within my congnisance.”
3. From the perusal of the judgment of the Civil Court in the suit filed by Ajit Singh against Muktsar Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank, Muktsar, it would come out that Ajit Singh had filed a suit for declaration that he had never taken any loan against property and that mortgage deed dated 9.8.1994 was a forged and fabricated document and he was not bound by the same and a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from effecting any recovery on the basis of forged documents. He had pleaded that he never applied with the defendant bank for taking loan nor he had put his thumb impressions on any document. It was stated that if the defendant had any photograph or other form of the plaintiff then the same was forged and fabricated document and that he had never given any document attested by Lambardar, Sarpanch, Panch etc. for taking the loan. Some other person in connivance with the defendant might have produced forged and fabricated document. In that case, issue No. 1 and 5 had been framed as under:
“1. Whether mortgage deed No. 1722 dated 09.08.1994 regarding the suit land is forged, fabricated and not binding on the right of the plaintiff? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court and obtained loan in connivance of his son to defraud the bank as alleged? OPD
The Civil Court had decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff and had ultimately decreed the suit holding that Ajit Singh had never obtained any loan by executing mortgage deed.
4. In view of the judgment of the Civil Court, the charges as against the present petitioner will not stand that he entered into any conspiracy or had forged any document or had taken any loan or had cheated anybody.
5. This petition, as such, is accepted and the proceedings as against the petitioner shall stand quashed.