Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santa Singh vs Jagtar Singh And Others on 4 December, 2023
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154337
CRM-M-28951-2019 #1# 2023:PHHC:154337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-28951-2019
Date of Decision:-04.12.2023
Santa Singh.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
Jagtar Singh & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for setting
aside the order dated 04.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Moonak whereby the Criminal Complaint No.COMI-
35-2014 (Registered Vide Complaint No.66 dated 25.08.2014) has been
dismissed without summoning the accused and to set aside the judgment
dated 05.09.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur (Annexure
P-2) vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner has also been
dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant-
Santa Singh (now represented through his Lrs) instituted the complaint
under Section 420, 453, 426, 427, 441, 379, 511, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
P.S. Moonak with the allegations that the respondent/accused Jagtar Singh in
connivance with the other accused had entered into agreement to sell dated
11.11.2013 alleging himself to be the owner of the house in dispute for a
sum of Rs.20 lacs with Pritam Singh and Binder Singh and received a sum
of Rs.20 lacs, though the said Jagtar Singh had no concern with the property
in question. The said agreement had been witnessed by Mohan Singh and
Pargat Singh accused/respondent nos.8 & 9.
3. The aforesaid complaint came to be dismissed by the court of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154337
CRM-M-28951-2019 #2# 2023:PHHC:154337
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak vide judgment dated
04.03.2017 (Annexure P-1).
4. The petitioner/complainant preferred a revision petition against
the order dated 04.03.2017 which also came to be dismissed by the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 5.9.2018
(Annexure P-2).
5. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present revision petition.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner/complainant (now represented
through his Lrs) contends that the respondent no.1 Jagtar Singh in
connivance with other respondents had entered into the agreement to sell
dated 11.11.2013 alleging himself to the owner of the disputed house and
had received a sum of Rs.20 lacs despite the fact that he was aware that he
was not the owner and that the owner was the complainant alone. In fact
Jagtar Singh was only occupying a room given to him by the
petitioner/complainant in a family settlement. It was apparent that the said
agreement to sell was fabricated because pursuant thereto no attempt was
ever made to get the said sale deed executed. The Trial Court at the stage of
summoning was to examine as to whether a prima facie case was made out
but ignored the settled proposition of law and summarily dismissed the
complaint vide impugned order. The said illegality had been perpetuated by
the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide his judgment dated
05.09.2018. By no stretch of imagination could it be said to be a case of
civil nature alone. Therefore, the judgments were liable to be set aside and
the respondent/accused were to be summoned in accordance with law.
7. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner.
8. A perusal of the file would reveal that no offence of forgery and
cheating is made out. Even if it was assumed that Jagtar Singh had entered
into agreement to sell by representing himself to be the owner of the
property in dispute, though he was owner only to the extent of 1/6th share,
no offence of forgery is made out. At the most it can be said to be a case of
cheating in which case the persons aggrieved would be Binder Singh and
Pritam Singh who had been cheated by the respondent/accused Jagtar Singh
as they had parted with a sum of Rs.20 lacs for the house of which Jagtar
Singh was not the exclusive owner. The said proposition of law has been
clearly enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154337
CRM-M-28951-2019 #3# 2023:PHHC:154337
State of Bihar & Anr. 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 369. The
petitioner/complainant Santa Singh was well within his rights to challenge
the agreement to sell before the Civil Court. As regards the offence of theft
other than the self serving statement of CW-8 Gurwinder Singh there is
absolutely no other independent or corroborative evidence of the same.
7. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the well
reasoned judgments of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak
dated 04.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) and the Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangrur dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P-2) and therefore, the present petition
stands dismissed.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
December 04, 2023
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154337
3 of 3
