Dismissed

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Oct 2012CRM-M/17552/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging a Magistrate's order declining a request for investigation into a fraudulent property sale, the court dismissed the appeal. It found sufficient evidence that the petitioner executed the sale voluntarily and noted the petitioner failed to prove purchase. The dismissal upheld the Magistrate's direction to file an amended complaint. Reliance on para 21

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed; the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate was upheld.

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-17552 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-17552 of 2011 Date of decision: 1.10.2012

¶5

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Bapurao Pakhiddey, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error while declining his application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. He further submits that his house situated in the village, had been sold fraudulently by Mahender Singh to Chakar Singh without any authority. He further submits that he petitioner never received any amount with regard to the sale of the property.

¶17

Heard and perused.

¶18

From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that there is enough evidence, which shows that the petitioner had sold his land to

¶19

¶20

CRM No.M-17552 of 2011

¶21

different villagers. In the revenue record, it is mentioned that the petitioner and his deceased father had sold the land and shifted to Delhi. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that during the inquiry conducted by the SHO, it transpired that the petitioner himself had executed the sale land. It is further averred that witness, Kishan Lal signed, whose photograph is appended on the sale deed, signed in Punjabi. The learned JMIC in his order dated 1.2.2011, has rightly directed the petitioner to file amended complaint in proper form and lead preliminary evidence in support of his case. After scrutinising the statements of the witnesses annexed with the petition, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned JMIC, Jagraon. As such, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

¶22

1.10.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaljit & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Gulzar Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab

Kirna Rani Vs State of Punjab

Nishan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh &Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.