Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naranjan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
1.
CRM-M-36102-2012
2024:PHHC: 042245
NARANJAN SINGH JANDU
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondents
2.
CRM-M-36103-2012
2024:PHHC: 042247
NARANJAN SINGH JANDU
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondents
****
Reserved on: 12.03.2024
Pronounced on : 22.03.2024
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions titled above, as in both of
them filed under Section 482 CrPC, petitioners pray for setting aside the order
dated 13.08.2012 (Annexure P4) passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala
vide which order dated 05.03.2012 (Annexure P2) of ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Barnala in Criminal Complaint No.460 dated 28.09.2004 framing charges under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC against the accused-respondents, has been
set aside.
2.1 Concededly, complainant Naranjan Singh Jhandu (petitioner herein in
both the petitions) and accused No.1 to 3 namely, Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and
Satwinder Singh are the brothers. They are the sons of accused No.4 Puran Singh.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042247
CRM-M-36102-2012 2024:PHHC: 042245
CRM-M-36103-2012 2024:PHHC: 042247
Criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner seeking prosecution of his brothers
i.e., accused-Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Satwinder Singh, besides father
Puran Singh (arrayed as accused N: 4) & one Surinder Kumar (arrayed as accused
N: 5) under Sections 420/467/468/120-B IPC. According to him, he along with
Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Puran Singh had purchased 2 kanals of land vide
registered sale deed dated 01.04.1968, in which he was having 1/4th share. Later
on, by virtue of decree dated 19.03.1994 passed in Civil Suit No.1218 of 1993,
accused Puran Singh gave his share to the complainant and this way, complainant
became owner in possession of that part of the property, which was earlier owned
by Puran Singh. It was alleged that said Puran Singh was under the control of
accused No.1 to 3 i.e. Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Satwinder Singh and they
in connivance with accused No.5 Surinder Kumar got executed sale deed dated
09.09.2003 from Puran Singh regarding the same land, which had been earlier
transferred in the name of the complainant on the basis of decree dated 19.03.1994.
Accused No.5 Surinder Kumar is the attesting witness of the sale deed.
2.2 After recording evidence under Section 244 CrPC, accused was
chargesheeted by the trial Magistrate to face prosecution under Section 420/ 467/
468/120-B IPC. Since Puran Singh had died, so trial against him stood abated.
2.3 Against framing of the aforesaid charge, the accused No.1 to 3 i.e.
Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Satwinder Singh filed one revision; whereas,
accused No.5-Surinder Kumar i.e. attesting witness to the sale deed, filed separate
revision. Both revisions were considered by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala
and vide order dated 13.08.2012 (Annexure P4), both the revisions were accepted.
Order passed by the ld. Trial Magistrate, charge-sheeting the accused-revisionist,
was set aside.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042247
CRM-M-36102-2012 2024:PHHC: 042245
CRM-M-36103-2012 2024:PHHC: 042247
2.4 Against the aforesaid order dated 13.08.2012, the complainant of the
case has now approached this Court by filing these two petitions, one against
accused No.1 to 3 and other against accused No.5.
3. Reiterating the allegations of the complaint, it is contended by ld.
counsel that ld. Additional Sessions Judge, wrongly observed that accused No.5-
Surinder Kumar was only an attesting witness, as it was the specific case of the
complainant that the other accused were conniving with the accused No.5-Surinder
Kumar in getting the sale deed executed. Still further, it is contended that ld.
Additional Sessions Judge wrongly observed that Puran Singh had never raised any
accusing finger because said Puran Singh was not the owner in possession of the
land in question and so, was not competent to execute any sale deed and even
otherwise, he was under the domination of the other accused and this way, said
Puran Singh was not the victim and rather, it is the petitioner-complainant, who
was the victim, in whose favour decree had already been suffered. Ld. counsel
further contended that ld. ASJ has not correctly appreciated the legal position and
that the order charge-sheeting the accused-respondents, has been wrongly set aside.
4.1 Strongly opposing both the petitions, ld. counsel for the respondents
contend that entire claim of the petitioner-complainant is based upon decree dated
19.03.1994. However, bare reading of the plaint of that suit would reveal that the
said suit was filed qua 10 marlas of land in respect of the own share of the
complainant. That suit did not pertain to the share of Puran Singh, which will be
evident from the fact that in the plaint, the land situated in the west side of the suit
property was shown to be that of Puran Singh. Ld. counsel contends further that
petitioner never acquired any right in respect of share of Puran Singh by virtue of
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042247
CRM-M-36102-2012 2024:PHHC: 042245
CRM-M-36103-2012 2024:PHHC: 042247
the decree dated 19.03.1994 and that Puran Singh had sold the land of his
ownership to accused No.1 to 3 vide sale deed dated 09.09.2003.
4.2 Still further, ld. counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner-
complainant had filed a civil suit challenging the sale deed dated 09.09.2003
executed by Puran Singh, in favour of accused No.1 to 3, but that suit was
dismissed on 04.04.2018 by holding that Puran Singh had never given his share to
the complainant by virtue of the decree dated 19.03.1994 and thus, complainant
had not acquired any right over the share/property of Puran Singh by virtue of the
said decree. Ld. counsel for the respondents has also placed on record copy of the
judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 passed by ld. District Judge, Barnala, so as
to contend that even the appeal filed by the complainant-Naranjan Singh Jhandu
(petitioner herein) against the judgment and the decree of Civil Court dated
04.04.2018 has already been dismissed.
4.3 Defending the impugned order passed by ld. Additional Sessions
Judge, prayer is made for dismissal of both the petitions.
5. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised
the record carefully.
6. Sale deed dated 09.09.2003 has been admittedly executed by Puran
Singh in favour of accused No.1 to 3 i.e. Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and
Satwinder Singh (respondents No.2 to 4 in CRM-M-36102-2012). Surinder Kumar-
accused No.4 (respondent No.5 in CRM-M-36102-2012) is the attesting witness to
the sale deed. Puran Singh, who had executed the sale deed way back in September
2003, never challenged the said sale deed on any ground whatsoever like fraud,
undue influence or duress etc. during his life time, though Puran Singh expired
only after filing of present complaint. Rather, it is the complainant-Naranjan Singh
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042247
CRM-M-36102-2012 2024:PHHC: 042245
CRM-M-36103-2012 2024:PHHC: 042247
Jhandu (petitioner herein), who filed the civil suit challenging the sale deed in
favour of accused No.1 to 3 and that civil suit has been dismissed by the
Additional Civil Judge by way of judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018
(Annexure R1). Even the appeal against that judgment and decree has been
dismissed by ld. District Judge, Barnala on 30.10.2023.
7. Complainant claims that a decree dated 19.03.1994 had already been
suffered in his favour by Puran Singh regarding the same property in respect of
which sale deed dated 09.09.2003 was subsequently executed by Puran Singh in
favour of accused No.1 to 3. Though the respondents have refuted the said
contention on the basis of the judgments passed by the Civil Courts dismissing the
suit of complainant-Naranjan Singh Jhandu (petitioner herein), but assuming for
the sake of arguments that the allegations of the complainant-petitioner are true, it
does not make out any criminal case against the accused. As rightly observed by
the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, in its impugned order dated 13.08.2012
that there is no presumption that an attesting witness of document must be assumed
to be aware its contents. There was nothing on record to suggest that accused No.5-
Surinder Kumar was in any manner aware that Puran Singh had already suffered a
decree of the land in favour of the complainant, which was being sold by way of
sale deed dated 09.09.2003. As such ld. ASJ rightly placed reliance upon
Smt. Chandrakantaben etc. vs Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Others, 1989 AIR 1269.
8. Coming to the case against respondents-accused Darshan Singh, Amar
Singh and Satwinder Singh, they are the purchasers as per sale deed dated
09.09.2003. In case Puran Singh has sold property to these accused by virtue of
sale deed dated 09.09.2003, which property had already been transferred by Puran
Singh in favour of complainant-Naranjan Singh Jhandu (petitioner herein), then it
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042247
CRM-M-36102-2012 2024:PHHC: 042245
CRM-M-36103-2012 2024:PHHC: 042247
is obvious that it is the accused-Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Satwinder Singh,
who are the victims of fraud and not the complainant. It has been so held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, 2009(4) RCR
(Criminal) 369 to the effect that it is only the subsequent purchaser, who can file a
complaint under Section 420 IPC on account of cheating with him. It was held that
if an accused has sold property of another person claiming himself to be the owner,
then it is the purchaser, who has been cheated and not the owner of the property.
Purchaser may lodge a complaint under Section 420 IPC to the effect that he was
cheated by the accused by making false representation of ownership to him though
the accused actually was not the owner. Sale deed was not a forged , having been
admittedly executed by Puran and so, Sections 467 & 468 IPC are not attracted at
all.
9. In view of the legal position as above, this Court does not find any
illegality in the impugned order dated 13.08.2012. Consequently, finding no merit
in any of the petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.
Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected
case.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
22.03.2024 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? No
6 of 6
