Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdip Singh vs Satnam Singh on 4 November, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143104
CRR-2933-2018 &
CRR-5073-2018 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-2933-2018 &
CRR-5073-2018
Date of decision: 04.11.2024
CRR-2933-2018
Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Satnam Singh ...Respondent
AND
CRR-5073-2018
Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Gurmukh Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CRM-30832-2018 in CRR-2933-2018
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 17 days in filing CRR-2933-2018, is condoned.
CRM-44796-2018 in CRR-5073-2018
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 18 days in filing CRR-5073-2018, is condoned.
CRR-2933-2018 &
CRR-5073-2018
1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above
mentioned cases as they arise from the identical factual matrix.
2. The present revision petition is preferred by
petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 27.04.2018 passed by the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143104
CRR-2933-2018 &
CRR-5073-2018 [2]
Court learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 05.03.2015 passed
by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala in a criminal complaint
No.47 dated 14.03.2009 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
IPC, was set aside and respondent/accused Satnam Singh was acquitted of
charges framed against them.
3. CRR-5073-2018 is preferred by petitioner/complainant against
the aforesaid judgment dated 27.04.2018 vide which the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence both dated 05.03.2015 passed by the Court
of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala in a criminal complaint No.47 dated
14.03.2009 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, was set
aside and respondents/accused Gurmukh Singh and Narinder Singh were
acquitted of charges framed against them.
4. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent Gurmukh
Singh and petitioner were in joint possession of the land measuring 21
kanals 1 marla out of joint khata having Khasra No.41R/8(1-12),18/2(3-
9),23/1(2-0), 23/2(6-0),17(8-0) situated in village Harchowal, Tehsil Batala.
The accused persons entered into a conspiracy to grab the entire land of the
petitioner. In furtherance to that, Gurmukh Singh executed a false mortgage
deed dated 01.06.2000 in favour of Narinder Singh qua land measuring 12
kanals, which includes Khasra No.41R/8(1-12), 4 kanals out of Khasra
No.41R/17, 4 kanals out of Khasra No.41R23/1 and 23/2 for a sum of
Rs.12,500/- for a period of 19 years. Mutation No.3355 was also sanctioned
in favour of aforesaid Narinder Singh who is close relative of Gurmukh
Singh. However, entries in the khasra girdawari were not changed on the
basis of said mutation. The said entries were in the name of petitioner and
Gurmukh Singh till rabbi 2004. Further, Satnam Singh, Halqa Patwari,
changed the entries qua the alleged mortgaged land in the name of Narinder
Singh, in the jamabandi on the basis of the aforesaid false mortgage deed.
The said change in the revenue record was incorporated by Satnam Singh in
collusion with Gurmukh Singh and Narinder Singh, in an illegal manner.
When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid illegal acts
committed by the accused persons, he filed civil suit with regard to land in
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143104
CRR-2933-2018 &
CRR-5073-2018 [3]
question. Separate criminal complaint No.47 of 2009 was also filed by the
petitioner against the accused persons.
5. In the said criminal complaint, petitioner led preliminary
evidence and stepped into witness box as CW-1 and also examined CW-2
Rajbir Singh, Registration Clerk and CW-3 Rajinder Singh, Patwari.
Thereafter, the learned trial Court summoned all the three accused to face
trial under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC vide order dated
04.05.2012.
6. After the appearance of the accused persons, complainant in his
pre-charge evidence examined Maluk Singh, Registration clerk in the office
of Joint Sub Registrar, Sub Tehsil Qadian as CW-1 and himself stepped into
witness box as CW-2 and also examined Lakhwinder Singh, Girdwar Halqa
as CW-3.
7. Finding a prima facie case, the learned trial Court framed
charges under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the
accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In post-
charge evidence, accused cross-examined CW-2 complainant Gurdeep
Singh and CW-3 Lakhwinder Singh, Girdwar.
8. The entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused
persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However,
they denied the same and pleaded innocence and false implication. The
accused took specific plea that total joint land of the parties is 187 kanal 11
marlas and Gurmukh Singh is having 1/5 share in the joint land which
comes out to be 37 kanal 11 marlas, out of which he had sold 5 kanals and
mortgaged 24 kanal to his son Navtej Singh and Narinder Singh. That even
after the said disposition of land, Gurmukh Singh was still having another 8
kanal of land which is owned and possessed by him. The accused also
produced copy of order passed by Assistant Collector, Batala Ex.D-1 and
mutation Ex.D-2.
9. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced all the three accused under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B IPC vide judgment and order dated 05.03.2015.
10. Being aggrieved, the accused filed two separate appeals. Both
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143104
CRR-2933-2018 &
CRR-5073-2018 [4]
the said appeals were allowed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurdaspur and all the accused were acquitted vide judgment dated
27.04.2018.
11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision
petitions.
12. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.
13. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused persons
hatched conspiracy to grab the land belonging to the petitioner. In
furtherance of their plan, Satnam Singh who at the relevant time was
working as a Halqa Patwari, changed the entries in the revenue record on
the basis of one false mortgage deed dated 01.06.2000 alleged to be
executed by Gurmukh Singh in favour of his son and Narinder Singh. It is
further submitted that even mutation No.3355 was illegally sanctioned by
the revenue officials at the back of the petitioner. That all these illegal acts
amount to cheating and forgery. It is further submitted that the well
reasoned judgment and order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the learned trial
Court are set aside by the appellate Court in a casual manner without
appreciating the evidence available on the record. It is further contended
that even if the petitioner has already filed civil suit, the prosecution of the
accused persons on the basis of same facts and circumstances is not barred,
on the criminal side.
14. It is not disputed that petitioner Gurdeep Singh is real brother
of accused Gurmukh Singh. It is also evident that accused Narinder Singh is
related to aforesaid Gurmukh Singh, while accused Satnam Singh was
Halqa Patwari at the relevant time.
15. The petitioner and accused Gurmukh Singh were recorded as
co-sharer in the joint land. The execution of registered mortgage deed by
accused Gurmukh Singh in favour of co-accused Narinder Singh dated
01.06.2000 is not disputed by the accused persons before the trial Court. It
appears that accused Gurmukh Singh mortgaged specific portion out of joint
land in favour of his son and accused Narinder Singh. The mutation on the
basis of said mortgage deed was sanctioned by Assistant Collector, Ist
Grade, Batala vide Ex.D-1. No doubt, the aforesaid mortgage deed even if
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143104
CRR-2933-2018 &
CRR-5073-2018 [5]
was regarding specific portion out of joint land but it was not beyond the
share of accused Gurmukh Singh and thus, could be treated as mortgage
with regard to certain share out of the joint land. So, there was no illegality
in the said act of execution of mortgage deed. It is also evident that the
revenue officials sanctioned mutation on the basis of the said registered
mortgage deed. So, it cannot be said that the concerned revenue official
while entering the mutation committed any criminal act.
16. Further, there is nothing on the record to indicate that accused
Gurmukh Singh executed the aforesaid mortgage deed with malafide
intention to cheat the petitioner, by entering into conspiracy with co-
accused Narinder Singh and Satnam Singh.
17. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
dispute between the parties primarily appears to be of a civil nature and is
being given colour of criminal act, as there was no dishonest intention on
the part of the accused persons, from the very beginning, to defraud the
petitioner. In a case under Section 420 IPC, mens rea i.e. intention to
defraud should be present, from the very beginning or inception, as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and
others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2024 INSC 626.
18. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality or
perversity in the findings recorded by the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Gurdaspur, in the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2018.
Consequently, no ground for interference is made out in the present revision
petitions.
19. Hence, both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed being
devoid of merits.
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of in aforesaid terms.
04.11.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
