Dismissed
Mulakh Raj v. State of Haryana
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/12626/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2012 1 In the High Court of Punjab and…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2012 1 In the High Court of Punjab and…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No.M-12626 of 2012
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-12626 of 2012 Date of decision: November 06, 2012
Mulakh Raj
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana Mr.S.S.Dinarpur,Advocate for the complainant
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for his release on anticipatory bail in case FIR No.139 dated 13.4.2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short `IPC') registered at Police Station City, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioner in connivance with other accused got a fake decree dated 03.8.2010 in his favour with regard to property owned by Mehro Devi by producing some other lady in her place. Mehro Devi had died on 16.6.2006. In these circumstances, no settlement with regard to her property could
2
CRM No.M-12626 of 2012
have been arrived at on 15.12.2008 nor she could have appeared in the Court to make a statement when the decree in favour of the petitioner was passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. Parties were closely related to each other.
Learned State counsel, who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation but the offence committed by the petitioner was serious in nature. Petitioner had got a decree in his favour by producing some other lady before the Court as Mehro Devi, although Mehro Devi was not alive on the date of passing of the decree. Learned State counsel has further submitted that another FIR had also been registered against the petitioner with regard to cheating and forgery at Police Station Jhansa bearing No.72 on 28.10.2012.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution case, petitioner had got a decree in his favour with regard to the land owned by Mehro Devi by producing some other lady in her place. Mehro Devi had died on 16.6.2006. The suit was filed by the petitioner against Mehro Devi on the basis of family settlement dated 15.12.2008. The decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 03.8.2010. Thus, when the suit was filed by the petitioner against Mehro Devi, she was no longer alive on the said
3
CRM No.M-12626 of 2012
date. Mehro Devi could not have appeared in the Court to suffer a statement in favour of the petitioner as she had already died much prior to the filing of the suit by the petitioner. In these circumstances,
there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
November 06, 2012
arya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC given the serious nature of alleged forgery involving production of a deceased person in court.
Whether the petitioner deserves relief in view of the serious allegations regarding obtaining a decree against a deceased party by impersonating her.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mulakh Raj
State of Haryana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court