Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjant Singh vs Bara Singh on 6 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146892
CRM-M-55034-2024 1
119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55034-2024
Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
Gurjant Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Bara Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
1. Aggrieved by the directions of the trial Court pointing out the commission of
cognizable offense and directing SHO to take action because of underpayment of stamp
duty in the sale transaction as surfaced while dealing with the trial under the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the accused has come up before this Court by filing the present petition
under Section 528 BNSS 2023.
2. Given the grievance of the accused, no notices are required to be issued to the
complainant (respondent).
3. Facts of the case are being taken from the judgment dated 09.08.2024, passed by
the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla.
4. The complainant (respondent)-Bara Singh, alleged that he had entered into an
agreement to sell dated 23.04.2019 with the petitioner-Gurjant Singh for the sale of his
land measuring 15 bighas 13 Biswas 3 basis at the rate of 3.75 lacs per bigha. The
complainant had received advance earnest money of Rs.2 lacs, and the sale deed was
executed on 20.06.2019, and the amount of the sale deed was mentioned as Rs.22 lacs.
As a sequel to the agreement of sale, the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.12 lacs, but
the same was dishonored, which led to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. During the course of the trial vide a detailed judgment dated 09.08.2024, the trial
Court dismissed the complaint on technical reasons but applied its mind to the
commission of another crime, i.e., depriving the government of the registration fee by
under-valuing the value of the land. In para 31 of the above-said judgment, details were
mentioned on how the approximate value of the entire land was Rs.60 lacs, and despite
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146892
that, the sale deed was executed at Rs.22 lacs, which is below the collectorate rate. In
para 32, the trial Court found the commission of the cognizable offense and ordered that a
copy of the judgment be forwarded to the concerned SHO to look into the matter. Feeling
aggrieved by these observations, the accused has come up before this Court.
6. I have gone through all the pleadings and fully agree with the observations made
by the trial court in paragraph 31 of the judgment. On the face of it, the sale deed was
registered at Rs.22 lacs, whereas the actual transaction was around Rs.60 lacs. Therefore,
there is no illegality in this part of the order.
7. However, regarding the next portion of the order that the concerned Judicial
Magistrate has observed that a cognizable offense had been made out and has forwarded
the matter to the concerned SHO, it does not align with Section 210 BNSS 2023. Once
the concerned Court had formed an opinion under Section 210(1)(C) BNSS, in the given
facts and circumstances, the correct remedy was to inform the concerned District
Collector under the Registration Act for undervaluing the property. Further, there was no
reason for the Court to observe that a cognizable offense was made out because it was for
the concerned District Magistrate to enquire into the matter and proceed further. Thus, in
the entirety of facts and circumstance, it is clarified that although observations made in
para 31 are upheld, the observation made in para 32 of the judgment, wherein the trial
Court has observed that cognizable offense is made out and has asked the concerned SHO
to look into the matter, is quashed and set aside and the concerned trial Court is directed
to forward the copy of the judgment along with the present order to the concerned
District Collector, Malerkotla, who will look into the matter and hold the inquiry and
make all efforts to conclude the same as early as possible, but not less than three months.
After that it shall be for the concerned District Collector to proceed further in accordance
with law.
8. Petition is partly allowed. The observation made by trial Court mentioned
above will not be binding on Collector. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
06.11.2024
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: YES.
2 of 2
