Malkiat Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 1451 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Malkiat Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2026

                             1682       (O&M)                            1




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH

                  307

                                                                  CRR-1682-2025 (O&M)
                                                                  Date of decision: 16.02.2026

                  MALKIAT KAUR

                                                                                  ....Petitioner
                                                        Versus

                  STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                                 ....Respondent

                  CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

                  Present:          Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
                                    for the petitioner.

                                    Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab.

                                                *****
                  RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision is filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2018

passed by learned JMIC, Mansa, whereby, the appeal filed by the

petitioners, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 16.11.2018, 16.11.2018 passed by learned JMIC, Mansa and the judgment dated

26.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby

the order of learned JMIC, Mansa was upheld and the appeal has been

dismissed, in complaint under Sections 193, 196, 467, 468, 471, 420/511

of IPC read with Section 120-B 120 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 1860.

2. Brief background round of the case is that the applicants, Amarjit

Kaur and Gurnam Singh, moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Jit Singh and his wife

authenticity of this document.

Malkiat Kaur on allegations of perjury, fabrication of false eevidence, and

fraud upon the Court. It is averred that in Civil Suit No. 35 dated

02.09.2000 titled Jit Singh vs. Amarjit Kaur & Ors.

Ors., decided on 12.11.2003

by the Court of the then Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Mansa, Jit Singh had

specifically pleaded that Nek Singh @ Tek Singh @ Ranjit Singh was his

real brother, one among six brothers, and had further stated that the said

brother was unmarried, issueless, and missing for 40 40-45 years. Similar

averments were made in a subsequent civil suit for possession and in

partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Tehsildar,

Budhlada.

The applicants submit that Nek Singh had executed a General

Power of Attorney No. 113 dated 14.06.1989 in favour of Babu Singh,

pursuant to which registered sale deeds dated dated 20.06.1989 were executed in

favour of the applicants, who have since remained in possession as lawful

owners.

It is alleged that despite earlier judicial admissions

acknowledging Nek Singh as a distinct person and real brother, Jit Singh,

in collusion on with his wife, subsequently instituted a suit by falsely

projecting Jit Singh as being identical to Nek Singh @ Ranjit Singh, and

by denying the existence/validity of the General Power of Attorney. The

applicants contend that this amounted to deliberate concealment of

material facts, contradictory pleadings, impersonation, and fraud upon the

Court with intent to defeat the applicants' lawful title and grab the disputed

land, leading to the present complaint. Upon trial, vide judgment and order

authenticity of this document.

dated 16.11.20 1.2018,, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa,

petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:

under:-

Name of Sentence under Section RI Fine In default of convict awarded payment of Fine further RI for 120 IPC 120-B 2 years Rs.

                                                                  Rs.500/-       01 month

                                 193/120 IPC
                                 193/120-B                2 years Rs.
                                                                  Rs.500/-       01 month

                     Malkiat     196/120 IPC
                                 196/120-B                2 years Rs.500/
                                                                  Rs.500/-       01 month
                      Kaur       467/120 IPC
                                 467/120-B                2 years Rs.500/
                                                                  Rs.500/-       01 month
                                 468/120 IPC
                                 468/120-B                2 years Rs.500/
                                                                  Rs.500/-       01 month
                                 471/120 IPC
                                 471/120-B                2 years Rs.500/
                                                                  Rs.500/-       01 month
                                 420/511/120 IPC
                                 420/511/120-B            2 years Rs.500/
                                                                  Rs.500/-       01 month

3. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction an and order of

sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal before the ld. Additional Sessions

Judge, Mansa, Mansa who vide judgment dated 26.05.2025 dismissed the same.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that he is not assailing the he conviction of the petitioner on merits

and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of

sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the

petitioner has already undergone total sentence of 07 months and 23 days.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate

in Court today, which is taken on record and opposes the prayer of the

petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well well-reasoned

judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record

and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the

record hass been meticulously examined with their able assistance.

GURPREET 7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 257,

authenticity of this document.

the Supreme Court (Three-Judge (Three Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not

a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescri prescribes both

minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion

conferred upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as

the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused's age

are imperative in determining an an appropriate sentence. The sentencing

court must operate within the principle of proportionality, ensuring the

sentence is neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient.

8. In Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2017 SC

1166,, the Court reaffirmed reaffirmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose

a deterrent effect that compels the offender to acknowledge the harm

caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities

for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discret discretion must be

exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature

and manner of the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a

balance between legal efficacy and prospects of rehabilitation.

9. A careful review of the convictio conviction rendered by the learned

Appellate Court reveals no perversity; the decision is grounded in a sound

appreciation of the evidence.

evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged

the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a

modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone.

10. Perusal of record indicates that complaint (supra) was

registered in the year 2015 20 and the petitioners ioners have been suffering the

agony of trial since the last more than 111 years. As per the custody

authenticity of this document.

                                                                        (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
                  16.02.2026                                               JUDGE
                  Gurpreet
                                    i)     Whether speaking/reasoned?       Yes/No
                                    ii)    Whether reportable?              Yes/No
authenticity of this document.