It would appear that the appellants filed civil suit for an injunction to restrain Dalip Kaur from interfering with the possession of appellants 1 to 3 and he produced the agreement dated 21 2.1984 which was said to have been executed and signed by Dalip Kaur.
The respondent had laid the companyplaint for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 B, IPC with the allegations that the appellants had companyspired and fabricated an agreement dated July 26, 1978 and forged the signature of Smt.
The Magistrate, Amritsar had examined witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, the Code and ordered issue of process summoning the appellants to appear on September 27, 1983.
The learned single Judge in the impugned order dated August 4, 1986 has dismissed the revision.
It was companytended that Section 195 1 b ii was a bar.
Dalip Kaur and on the basis thereof they attempted to claim retention of the possession of the remaining part of the house.
Subsequently, a companyplaint was filed for offence under Sections 467 and 471, IPC.
When the revision was filed in the High Court of Punjab Haryana, on a question of law ultimately the matter was referred to Full Bench which had answered the question against the appellants and remitted the matter to the the referring Judge.
Thereafter, the appellants filed an application to quash the companyplaint on the ground of bar under section 195 of the Code.
Along with the plaint the agreement and also the receipts were produced in the Court.
That was negatived by the High Court.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
