Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Dass vs Raj Kumar And Others on 9 August, 2023
CRR-2672-2019 -1-
2023:PHHC:105989
251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-31659-2019 in/&
CRR-2672-2019
Decided on : 09.08.2023
Charan Dass ...... Petitioner
Versus
Raj Kumar and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
CRM-31659-2019
Application is allowed as prayed for and the delay of 443 days in
filing the petition is condoned.
Main case
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the
order dated 19.03.2018 passed by JMIC, Dera Bassi vide which the
respondents were discharged for commission of offences under Sections 420,
465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in a complaint instituted by him.
2. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint in question, the
petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was a member of Harijan
Society Ltd., Batouli, Tehsil Dera Bassi (hereinafter referred to as 'Society').
The Society comprised of 35 members, who were cultivating 257 Bigha and
16 Biswa of land, which was in the name of the Society. Each of the 35
SONIA BURA
2023.08.22 11:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:105989
members of the Society had been given 7 Bighas of land. The father of the
complainant Kehar Singh had been a member of the Society from its very
inception. As per the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab, no
member of the Society could sell the land of the Society and every member
during his lifetime could appoint his nominee, who would get membership of
the Society on the death of the original member. On 13.02.1969, the
complainant was appointed by his father as his nominee. When the father of
the complainant died on 24.01.2000, the complainant became a member of
the Society.
Raj Kumar- respondent No.1, brother of the complainant, along
with respondents No.2 and 3 after conniving with each other forged the Will
of Kehar Singh, father of the complainant, and thereafter mortgaged the land
of the Society, which had devolved upon the complainant upon the death of
his father, in favour of one Sajjan Singh - respondent No.4, who in turn
mortgaged the land to one Bant Singh. Respondent No.4 gave Rs.80,000/- to
respondent No.1 at the time of mortgage of land in question. It was also
alleged in the complaint that all the accused had connived with each other by
playing fraud upon the complainant. Not only this, the police had obtained
the signatures of the complainant on a number of papers so that he could not
lodge any FIR against the accused persons. Thereafter, the complainant
collected inquiry report under Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Learned counsel while drawing the attention of this Court to the
SONIA BURA
2023.08.22 11:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:105989
impugned order has vehemently argued that the Court below erred in
observing that prosecution had failed to prove the commission of offfences
alleged. Learned counsel submits that the observations made by the trial
court were perverse as it had failed to appreciate the evidence, which had
been adduced by the complainant before it. It has also been submitted that
Kundan Ram, cashier of the Society, while stepping into the witness box as
CW-2 had supported the case of the complainant to the effect that Kehar
Singh during his life-time had nominated the complainant as his successor.
On 31.01.2009, a resolution Ex.C-2/B was passed and the complainant was
appointed as a member of the Society and thereafter his name was
incorporated in the list of members. Besides this, learned counsel has
reiterated the allegations levelled in the complaint in question and prayed for
setting aside the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2018.
4. Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material on
record.
5. It is the specific case of the complainant that his brother i.e.
respondent No.1 in connivance with other co-accused forged the Will of his
father Kehar Singh. Thereafter on the basis of the forged Will, he took
possession of 7 Biswa of land, which in turn was illegally mortgaged with
respondent No.4 Sajjan Singh as the owner of the land was Society and only
its members could cultivate the same. However, it is a matter of record that
the original Will of Kehar Singh, which had been allegedly forged by
respondent No.1, was never produced by the complainant before the trial
SONIA BURA
2023.08.22 11:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:105989
court. The entire thrust of allegations levelled by the petitioner rests on
forgery of the Will in question. However, in the absence of the original Will,
charge of forgery could not be proved and prima facie, no case was thus,
made out for commssion of offences alleged. As far as other documents
produced by petitioner are concerned, only one agreement/pronote Mark CD
was produced by the complainant, which showed that it had been executed by
respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.4 with respect to the execution of
a separate pronote Mark 'CE' vide which respondent No.1 had received
Rs.80,000/- from respondent No.4 Sajjan Singh in exchange of mortgage of 4
Bighas of land in his favour. Still further, strangely, neither the description of
the land was mentioned in the agreement nor was there any mention of the
ownership of the land vesting in Harijan Cooperative Society, Batouli. Even
CW-2 Kundan Ram while stepping into the witness box had admitted that the
petitioner was the not the owner of the land in question but merely a member
of the society.
6. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality much
less perversity in the impugned order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the Court
below.
7. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of any merit
stands dismissed.
09.08.2023 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SONIA BURA
2023.08.22 11:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
