[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Pal @ Pappu vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026
CRR-1891-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.115
CRR-1891-2017
Reserved on:-10.04.2026
Pronounced on:-18.04.2026
Uploaded on:- __________
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
HARINDER PAL @ PAPPU ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. The present criminal revision has been filed against the
impugned judgment dated 08.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fatehabad as well as judgment/order dated 29.01.2015/
02.02.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Tohana.
2. Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are that a
complaint was received at Police Station City Tohana which was referred to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, wherein the complainants
namely Daljit Singh and Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Singh sons of Sunder Singh,
residents of village Simbalwala, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad alleged
that on 03.02.2010 accused Harinder Pal Singh son of late Gurbachan Singh
had purchased a stamp paper in his own name and executed an agreement to
sell (Ikrarnama Beh) in favour of Joginder Singh, Darshan Singh and
Bahadur Singh with respect to a piece of land measuring 401 square yards
situated in village Simbalwala, by falsely representing himself and his
brothers namely Harsimran Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Jasbir Singh to be the
owners in possession of the said property. It was specifically alleged that the
accused had no right, title or interest in the said property. The ownership of
the property in question was claimed by complainant Daljit Singh on the
basis that Gurbachan Singh (father of the accused), during his lifetime, had
executed a registered gift deed bearing No. 688 dated 14.08.1970 in favour
of Daljit Singh, whereby the house along with courtyard was gifted to him
and he accordingly became owner in possession of the said property. It was
further stated that after execution of the said gift deed, Gurbachan Singh left
the village and did not reside there for residential purposes. After his death,
the accused and his brothers had already sold their agricultural land to the
extent of their respective shares and had no land left in the abadi deh of the
village. It was further the case of the complainants that as per the record of
Abadi Deh of the Simbalwala for the year 1993-94, the complainants were
joint owners in possession of house No.1 along with courtyard measuring
1285 square yards out of total land measuring 1718 square yards, whereas a
portion measuring 433 square yards had fallen to the share of their brother
Balwant Singh in a family partition dated 16.04.2007. Thus, according to the
complainants, the accused and his brothers had no concern whatsoever with
the property in dispute. Despite having no title, the accused, by
misrepresenting facts and falsely claiming ownership, executed the aforesaid
agreement to sell in favour of third persons.
3. It was further alleged that the said agreement to sell was null
and void and had no legal sanctity and by executing the same, the accused
caused wrongful loss to the complainants and wrongful gain to himself and
the proposed vendees. On the basis of the said allegations, investigation was
conducted. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before
the Court and charge was framed against the accused under Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471 IPC. Thereafter, the prosecution led evidence in support of
its case. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court
held the accused guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-,
vide judgment/order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Tohana. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before
the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 08.05.2017. However, the learned appellate Court modified the order
of sentence to the extent that the sentence awarded under Section 471 IPC
was reduced from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment, while
maintaining the conviction as well as the remaining sentence and fine.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are wholly
erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law. It is
submitted that the offence of forgery under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC is
not made out in the present case, as there is no allegation or proof that any
document was forged by the petitioner. It is argued that the agreement to sell
in question was executed in favour of Joginder Singh, Darshan Singh and
Bahadur Singh by mentioning therein that the petitioner along with his
brothers is the owner in possession of the property, and there is no material
on record to show that the petitioner impersonated any other person or
fabricated any document so as to bring the case within the ambit of making a
"false document" as defined under law. Thus, the essential ingredients of
forgery are completely absent. It is further contended that even the offence
of cheating under Section 420 IPC is not made out. It is argued that the
agreement to sell was executed in favour of the aforesaid vendees, and if at
all any person could be said to have been deceived, it would be the said
vendees. However, none of the said vendees, namely Joginder Singh,
Darshan Singh and Bahadur Singh, has come forward to lodge any
complaint against the petitioner or to allege that they were induced or
cheated by him. In the absence of any such allegation or evidence of
inducement or delivery of property, the basic ingredients of cheating are not
satisfied. It is further argued that the complainant Daljit Singh, who claims
himself to be the owner of the property on the basis of a gift deed dated
14.08.1970, has not stepped into the witness box to depose in support of the
prosecution case. It is contended that Daljit Singh was the most material
witness, and his non-appearance has caused serious prejudice to the
petitioner, as the prosecution has failed to establish that any deception was
practised upon him or that he suffered any wrongful loss on account of the
alleged act of the petitioner. In the absence of his testimony, the prosecution
version remains unsubstantiated. It is also contended that the learned Courts
below have failed to appreciate that an agreement to sell by itself does not
create any right, title or interest in the property and, therefore, no offence
can be said to have been committed merely on the basis of execution of such
agreement. It is further argued that the documents relied upon by the
prosecution are inadmissible and have not been duly proved in accordance
with law, and the so-called field book does not establish ownership of the
complainants over the property in question. It is further submitted that the
prosecution evidence is shaky, inconsistent and insufficient to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Courts below have erred in relying
upon such evidence and have ignored material contradictions and legal
infirmities. It is also argued that the investigation conducted in the present
case is doubtful inasmuch as statements of certain persons were recorded
who were allegedly not even alive at the relevant time. Lastly, it is
contended that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving
the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit
of doubt. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgments of conviction
and orders of sentence passed by the Courts below be set aside and the
petitioner be acquitted of all the charges.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
present revision petition and supported the judgments passed by the Courts
below. It is contended that both the learned trial Court as well as the learned
appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence available on record
and have correctly returned the findings of conviction against the petitioner.
It is further contended that the civil dispute with regard to the property in
question already stands adjudicated and the civil suit has been decided in
favour of the complainants, wherein it has been categorically held that the
gift deed dated 14.08.1970 stands duly proved and validly executed in
favour of complainant Daljit Singh. Thus, the ownership of the property in
question having been conclusively established in favour of one of the
complainants, the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the same. It is
argued that despite having full knowledge of the aforesaid fact, the
petitioner, in connivance with his brothers, dishonestly executed the
agreement to sell in favour of Joginder Singh, Darshan Singh and Bahadur
Singh by falsely representing that he along with his brothers was owner in
possession of the suit property. Such act clearly demonstrates the dishonest
intention of the petitioner from the very inception and establishes that he
intentionally misrepresented facts in order to derive wrongful gain. It is
further submitted that by executing the said agreement to sell in respect of
property which did not belong to him, the petitioner not only attempted to
confer unlawful rights upon the vendees but also caused wrongful loss to the
true owner, i.e. one of the complainants, and corresponding wrongful gain to
himself. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offences of cheating and
forgery stand fully satisfied and the petitioner has been rightly convicted
under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the
contention regarding non-examination of complainant Daljit Singh is
concerned, learned State counsel has argued that the same is devoid of merit,
as the other complainant has duly stepped into the witness box and
supported the prosecution case. It is contended that the law does not require
examination of each and every witness and the testimony of one reliable
witness is sufficient to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, merely
because Daljit Singh did not appear in the witness box, no adverse inference
can be drawn against the prosecution. It is thus contended that the
prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and no
illegality or perversity can be found in the impugned judgments passed by
the Courts below. Consequently, it is prayed that the present revision petition
being devoid of merit be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
State counsel and have gone through the record of the case with their able
assistance. At the outset, certain facts emerge on record which are not in
dispute between the parties. It is not specifically denied that the petitioner-
accused had executed an agreement to sell dated 03.02.2010 in favour of
Joginder Singh, Darshan Singh and Bahadur Singh, wherein he represented
himself along with his brothers to be the owners in possession of the suit
property. It is also proved on record that thereafter civil litigation had taken
place between the parties with respect to the property in question, wherein
the gift deed dated 14.08.1970 executed by Gurbachan Singh, father of the
accused, in favour of complainant Daljit Singh has been held to be valid and
duly proved vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.2013. An appeal was also
dismissed vide judgment dated 13.10.2015. Thus, it stands established that
the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the suit property. These
foundational facts, therefore, are not in serious dispute. The primary
question which arises for consideration is whether, on the basis of the
aforesaid admitted and proved facts, the offences of forgery and cheating are
made out against the petitioner.
7. So far as the offence of forgery is concerned, the same is
defined under Section 463 IPC, which provides that a person is said to
commit forgery if he makes any false document or false electronic record
with intent to cause damage or injury, or to support any claim or title, or to
cause any person to part with property. The expression "false document" has
been further defined under Section 464 IPC, which essentially contemplates
a situation where a document is made dishonestly or fraudulently so as to
make it appear that it was made by another person, or by the authority of
another person, or where the contents of a document are altered or fabricated
in a manner contemplated under the said provision. In the present case, a
careful perusal of the record reveals that there is no allegation, much less
any evidence, to show that the petitioner had made any "false document"
within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. It is not the case of the prosecution
that the petitioner had forged the signatures of any person, or that he had
impersonated the true owner of the property, or that he had executed the
document in the name of some other person without authority. The
agreement to sell in question was executed by the petitioner by describing
himself and his brothers as owners of the property. At best, the recitals in the
agreement regarding ownership are incorrect or false, but a document does
not become a "false document" merely because its contents are untrue. The
distinction between a false statement and a false document is well settled in
law. Thus, in the absence of any material to show that the petitioner created
or fabricated a document in the name of another person or without authority,
the essential ingredients of forgery are not satisfied. Consequently, the
conviction of the petitioner under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC cannot be
sustained and the findings recorded by the Courts below to that extent are
liable to be set aside. Coming to the offence of cheating, Section 415 IPC
defines cheating as deception of any person and thereby fraudulently or
dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property or to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm.
8. In the present case, the alleged representation of ownership was
made by the petitioner in favour of the vendees namely Joginder Singh,
Darshan Singh and Bahadur Singh. However, none of the said vendees has
come forward to lodge any complaint against the petitioner. There is nothing
on record to show that they were induced to part with any money or that any
earnest money was ever paid pursuant to the said agreement. It is also an
admitted position that the agreement to sell was never acted upon and no
further transaction took place on the basis of the same. As regards the
complainants, it is evident that they were not parties to the agreement to sell.
There is no material to show that any representation was made to them or
that they were induced to part with any property. The essential requirement
of deception and inducement qua the complainants is, therefore, completely
absent. Although one of the complainants, namely Jagjit Singh, has appeared
in the witness box, the other complainant Daljit Singh, who is stated to be
the owner of the suit property on the basis of the gift deed, has not stepped
into the witness box. In the absence of his testimony, it cannot be said that
any deception was practised upon him or that he suffered any wrongful loss
on account of the alleged act of the petitioner. The offence of cheating is
person-specific and requires that the person alleging cheating must have
been deceived and induced to act to his detriment. In the present case,
neither the vendees, who were the recipients of the alleged representation,
have complained of any deception, nor have the complainants been shown to
have been induced or to have suffered any legally cognizable loss. In such
circumstances, the foundational ingredients of the offence under Section 420
IPC are not made out.
9. Thus, upon an overall appreciation of the material on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to
establish the essential ingredients of the offences of forgery as well as
cheating against the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Courts below
suffer from legal infirmity and misapplication of the settled principles of
law.
10. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The
judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by the learned Courts
below are hereby set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the
charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Bail bonds, if any, stand
discharged.
11. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
