Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulzar Singh vs Davinder Kaur And Ors on 3 August, 2023
CRM-M-41271-2021 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101174
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41271-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.08.2023
Gulzar Singh
...Petitioner
Vs.
Davinder Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate,
For the petitioner.
Mr. DhruvDayal, Additional A.G. Punjab.
***
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-20420-2023
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
Documents at Annexures P-6 to P-8 are taken on record, subject to
all just exceptions.
Main case
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of order dated 19.08.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gurdaspur vide which complaint under Sections 420, 427,
463, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the respondents was dismissed and
order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby revision filed against the aforesaid order was also
dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case in hand, as recorded bylearned trial Court in
the impugned judgment, arereproduced as under:
"The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the
facts that the killa no.97/1 (0-13), 100/2(1-14) of Khewat no.46,
khatauni no. 180, H.B. No.171 situated near the village Abadi of
village Ali Nangal and valuable land having its minimum price of
5,000/- per marla, which devolves to the complainant by way of
Khangi Wand, of which the mutation of the land has been got
entered in his name vide mutation no. 1301 of village Ali Nangal. It
VANDANA
2023.08.16 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-41271-2021 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101174
is further stated that the complainant is already in possession of the
land of killa no. 100/2 being owner. There is enmity between the
complainant and accused and the accused entered into a conspiracy
to harm the interest of the complainant deliberately, intentionally,
knowing the facts that the complainant is owner of the land
pertaining to killa no. 100/2 situated in the revenue estate of village
Nangal, of which the Mutation of land has already been effected in
his favour, created a forged fabricated the document in order to
cheat, misappropriate and make undue loss to the complainant in
connivance with the other accused and created the registered sale
deed dated 28.6.2010. It is further submitted that Davinder Kaur
widow of Gurwinder Singh and Harpreet Singh son of Gurwinder
Singh accused executed the sale deed deposing himself as owner and
accused Kanta Devi as a purchaser of which the accused no.1 and 2
signed the sale deed being Mushtri on her behalf, whereas Ajaib
Singh and Tirath Ram Panch, village Ali Nangal attested the said
sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur. This very fact came
to know to the complainant on the day of demarcation of the land by
the complainant on dated 17.3.2010, when the revenue authorities
demarcated the land pertaining to killa no.100/2 and the revenue
officials demarcated the land and declared that the accused
no. 1 Kanta Devi is in illegal possession of land measuring 0-1
marlas and on being asking the accused No. 1 and 2 retaliated as a
owner being purchaser from Davinder Kaur and Harpreet Singh
accusedThe accused knowing the facts that the complainant is owner
of the land created the sale deed being genuine one which may be
used as genuine one in order to harm the interest and property of the
complainant, thereby played cheating and mischief and created
valuable documents being genuine one and committed an offence
under Sections 420/427/463/466/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC. The
complainant approached to the police authorities and reported the
entire matter to the police of police station Dorangla, but the police
authorities did not lodge the report and linger on the matter, since
the date of demarcation of the land and report thereof and yesterday
finally refused to get the matter registered in the shape of First
Information Report, hence this complaint."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint was
wrongly dismissed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurdaspur vide
order dated 19.08.2016 (Annexure P-1) by holding that the Court does not find
any truth in the allegations levelled by the complainant and his witnesses as no
offence has been committed by the accused against the complainant. It was also
wrongly held that dispute, if any, between the parties is of civil in nature.
Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner filed a revision which was also
dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure P-4).
3.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that both the Courts
below wrongly concluded that no offence of forgery can be said to be committed
VANDANA
2023.08.16 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-41271-2021 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101174
by respondent and that no prima facie offence punishable under sections 420, 427,
463, 467, 468,471, 120-B is shown to be committed by respondent.
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class while passing impugned order (Annexure P-1) dismissing
the complaint has wrongly relied upon judgment passed in "Md. Ibrahim and
others Vs. State of Bihar and another"1. He also relies on Apex Court's judgment
rendered in case titled "Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and others" 2 , in
support of his arguments.
4. Arguments heard.
5. Order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, assailed herein, is premised, inter alia,on
the following reasoning:
"13. When property, which is alleged to be owned and
possessed by complainant is comprising of Killa No. 97/1 (0-13),
100/2(1-14) then in that eventuality, the complainant would have
produced revenue record on file for establishing himself to be owner
in possession of the property in question. Even demarcation report
alleged by complainant to be in his favour is not proved on file.
Same is marked documents. Jamabandiplaced on record for the year
2004-2005, which is not exhibited by complainant is showing the
parties to be joint owner in possession of the property comprising of
Killa No. 97/1 (0-13), 100/2(1-14) alongwith other property having
different Killa numbers. In this eventuality even if respondent no. 1
Davinderkaur and respondent Harpreet Singh sold some specific
property in favour of respondent no. 4 through sale deed Ex. C2,
then as per law, that sale deed pertaining to the sale of some specific
property will be considered as a sale of share.
14 Alongwith this learned trial court rightly held that by
way of sale deed dated 28.06.2010 Ex. C2 rights of complainant can
not be said to be effected. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Md
Ibrahim and others Vs State of Bihar and another 2010 (2) Cri LJ
2223 has categorically held that in case same person sells the
property knowing that it does not belong to him it is the person
defrauded i.e. purchaser who can complain but the third party who
is not purchaser can not be said to be aggrieved in any manner.
15. So far as, allegations with regard to forgery are
concerned, section 463 and 464 of Indian Penal Code deal with
regard to the offence of forgery and false document.
16. After going through the above said provisions of lawin
the present case no offence of forgery can be said to be committed by
respondent.
2010 (2) Cri LJ 2223
VANDANA Law Finder Doc ID #211401
2023.08.16 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-41271-2021 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:101174
16. This court has come to this conclusion that learned
Trial Court has rightly come to this conclusion that no prima facie
offence punishable under Sections 420/427/463/467/468/471/120-B
is shown to be committed by respondent. Complaint filed by
complainant is established to be rightly dismissed.
17. There is no illegality or perversity in the order in
question calling for any interference by this court in its revisional
jurisdiction. Hence, this revision stands dismissed."
6. A perusal of above leaves no manner of doubt that there is no
irregularity either in facts or in law.
6.1 As per pleaded case of the petitioner, the person cheated, if at all, is
the buyer of the property, who has been sold the same allegedly by and at the
behest of respondents and, therefore, it is for the buyer to proceed against the
venders, if at all, they are not the owners of the property.
6.2 To attract the offence of forgery of a document under section 465,
it is a necessary to show that the document was/is false. Section 464 IPC shows
that a person is said to make a false document, who dishonestly or fraudulently
makes, signs or executes it with the intention of causing it to be believed that
such document was made, signed or executed by a person by whom it was not
made, signed or executed. From the complaint allegations, as they are, the
offence of forgery ascribed to the respondents is not made out.
7. There is thus no room for interference in the aforesaid valid reasons
recorded by learned Court below, with which I am in agreement. The petition sans
merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
03.08.2023
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VANDANA
2023.08.16 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
