Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh vs Devinder Singh And Anr on 6 May, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062624
CRM-M-26218-2016 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(263)
CRM-M-26218-2016 (O & M)
Date of Decision:06.05.2024
Ranbir Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Devinder Singh and anr. ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petitioner under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby the summoning
order dated 13.02.2014 under Section 420 IPC passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh has been set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint came to be
instituted by the petitioner against his brother and father under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC with the allegations that the accused
had fabricated certain documents and thereby had cheated him. A copy
of the complaint dated 31.01.2011 is annexed as Annexure P-1 to the
present petition.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062624
CRM-M-26218-2016 (O & M)
::2::
3. The Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh vide
its order dated 13.02.2014 dismissed the complaint under Sections 467,
468 and 120-B IPC but summoned the accused for having committed the
offence under Section 420 IPC. A copy of the order dated 13.02.2014 is
annexed as Annexure P-2 to the present petition.
4. The respondents-accused filed a revision petition against the
summoning order dated 13.02.2014 under Section 420 IPC. The said
revision petition was allowed and the order summoning the respondents
for having committed the offence under Section 420 IPC was set aside
vide judgment dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. A copy of the order dated 13.05.2016
is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the petition.
5. The aforementioned order is under challenge in the present
petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
offence is prima facie made out and therefore, not only were the accused-
respondents liable to be summoned under Sections 467, 468, 471 and
120-B IPC but for also having committed the offence under Section 420
IPC for which they had already been summoned but the said order had
been set aside in revision.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand,
contends that no fault could be found with the impugned order (Annexure
P-3) as absolutely no offence whatsoever is made out from a bare reading
of the complaint.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062624
CRM-M-26218-2016 (O & M)
::3::
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. A perusal of the order dated 11.07.2019 would reveal that
respondent No.1-Devinder Singh has passed away. A perusal of the
record would reveal that there is absolutely no document on record to
substantiate the allegations of the petitioner-complainant that forgery has
taken place. In fact, the complainant himself filed a suit for permanent
injunction restraining both the accused from creating any obstruction in
the peaceful use of his passage and the said suit was decreed on
13.08.2010. Thus, the controversy which exists between the parties is
with regard to a particular chunk of land. This dispute is purely civil in
nature. The Civil Court has already returned a finding in favour of the
complainant-petitioner. If aggrieved in any manner, the complainant-
petitioner is at liberty to avail his civil legal remedies in accordance with
law. The instant complaint quite obviously has been filed with a view to
pressurize the accused-respondents one of whom has passed away.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition
and the same stands dismissed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
May 06, 2024 JUDGE
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
