Sham Lal Thukral v. State Of Punjab
1
! "#"
$ % "
! &!
! "
# !
#
$ % ! !
&&& &!
'
"
'()
%*"* !+,-.
.
* / (0 (- -1(2'
3(+) 1+ -1(1 '
30) * . " " !/ ! 45 6 0+ (+ -1(1
! +78 +9( 5 . ! . %'
3(-)
'-) % * ! ! 45 6 +9217 1, -118" ! " % !+-1 +78 +7, +79 (-13%5 . "! : % 45 . 39-2+3 3-117" ! " / " ! " * . 1- -117 ! 3
!
'2) ;
!* "*. " * !" . !* < "! ! ! (
!
"# $%&
" #$# %& ##'(%)*&+%"
, ---- . %,
/
0 1 '
,
,
!
% /%
)23$&451)5+6 47*+8
!
"# $%&
" #$9( %& % ##'(%)*&+%"
, ---- . %,
:
5
/
0 )23$&451)5+6 47*+8
!
"# $%&
" #$9( %& % ##'(%)*&+%"
, #4)(%& % ---- #( ;
&,
:
0 5
< :%
0 )23$&451)5+6 47*+8
!
"# $%&
" #$# %& % #$9( %& % ##'(%)*&+%"
, ---- #$ #$9( % ;
&,
/
0 5 & %
0 )23$&451)5+6 47*+8
!
"# $%&
" #9)%& % ##'(%)*&+%"
, #4)(%& ---- . %,
=
0 5 &
%
0 )23$&451)5+6 47*+8 ' ( )"*+ "# '
!
"# $%&
" #9)%& % #$9( %& % 3 ---- &
&; &
%
0 )23$&451)5+6 47*+8
!
"# $%&
" #$*+ %& % #$9( %& % ##'(%)*&+%"
, ---- $ ,
&,
0 . =%
0 )23$&451)5+6 47*+8
!
"# $%&
" #4)(%& % # $9 %& &+"
, ---- . %,
=
/ 5
0 )23$&451)5+6 47*+8!
. -, (( -117 ! . !*=* . * " 11- -11, . ! ! . " *=
! 11- -11, ! "5%*) 1 ;
)1 *
%
&3>255%' %(%
>0 %
3
1 <5$
6 ? 6'
@
:
/
1 6 ? 6'
@%
:
/ A ; *
/ )23* "
(!
* !3 ! !2+1.
.
. " 1+ -1(1 !" 45 !+78 +9(
. ! !! ! !2+1.
.
"
'+)
1+ -1(1* . $ 5. % "
" (0 (- -1(2'
3(+)* $ % *
1+ -1(1* .
'8)
1+ -1(1>(0 (- -1(2*. "
/ !* *456 +9217 1, -118
! " % !+-1 +78 +7, +79 (-13%5 . */ *. -0 -1-2 . 39-2+3 -117 '7) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !+78 +9(5 . 11- -11,"* * !!
" 3 ! !"!
! ! . ? 45 * ! /
'9) @ ! *
" " ! !" *. "!
* ! . "
! ! ! "
"
',) 5 ! 3
5 !
(9) Although, a perusal of order dated 28.11.2006 passed by this Court in CRM-7234-M of 2007 shows that the trial Court was merely directed to adjourn the hearing beyond the date fixed by this Court, somehow an affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Court below mentioning about the grant of stay of proceedings by this Court which, evidently, in the present facts seems to be an un-intentional and bonafide error due to miscommunication with no dishonest intent to cause any damage or injury or commit fraud with anyone, as rightly professed on his behalf.
Moreover, even if, the affidavit is taken to be at its face value, what is apparent that the petitioner did not even gain anything illegal by filing the said affidavit as in any case this Court vide its interim orders directed the trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by this Court and therefore, no damage and injury was caused either to the prosecution or to the administration of justice as the trial Court, in either of eventuality was in a position to proceed further with the matter pending before it and thus, the petitioner cannot be termed to have committed any forgery. At best, in the present facts, it appears that the scribe of the affidavit dated 02.02.
2008, filed by the petitioner, went little beyond his instructions by concluding that the proceedings before the trial Court were ordered to be stayed though the interim direction was merely to adjourn the hearing beyond the date fixed before this Court.
(10) Equally important, the parties have already entered into a settlement and the main FIR already stands quashed by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2023. In view of the aforesaid to maintain peace and harmony and to give complete quietus to the long drawn litigation between the parties, who have remained at logger heads, though being neighbours, the petition is allowed. Orders passed by the Courts below passed on 19.12.2013 (P-14) and 04.09.2010 as well as FIR No.94 dated 14.09.2010 registered under Section 465, 471 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed. '(() " !* ! (1 111A3* " ? *? . !"* B4*C 4
!! 6 +(87+,+72,9"% 5 ? . % ! . " "" * '(-)
!') *
"#"
&!
" DA6 " DA6