Partly allowed

Baljit Kaur and Ors. v. Surinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2012CRM-M/31599/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the court examined whether a criminal complaint alleging forgery of an affidavit submitted before a revenue officer constituted an abuse of the process of court. The Supreme Court found that since the petitioners were not beneficiaries under the Will and there was no motive, the proceedings were an abuse of process and quashed.

What did the court decide?

The complaint No. 1 dated 19.2.2010 and the summoning order dated 4.8.2010 qua petitioners No. 1 (Baljit Kaur) and No. 4 (Randhir Singh) were quashed. The petition qua petitioners No. 2 and 3 was decl

Baljit Kaur and Ors. Vs Surinder Singh — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-31599 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-31599 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 13^th , 2012

¶5

Baljit Kaur and others

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Surinder Singh .... Respondent

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present Mr. P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. S.S.Bains, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶14

This is a petition brought by Baljit Kaur and three others, namely, Charan Kaur, Amar Kaur and Randhir Singh, under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No.1 dated 19.2.2010 for an offence punishable under sections 148, 196, 200, 417, 419, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code pending with Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Mohali and the summoning order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P2) vide which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for an offence punishable under sections 200, 419, 465, 468, 471 read with section 149 IPC, in order to prevent abuse of process of the court as well as in the interest of justice.

¶15

Crl. Misc. No.M-31599 of 2010

¶16

¶17

Stating briefly, the necessary facts are that Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh had three sons and four daughters. Hazoora Singh son of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh died in the year 1977 leaving behind two sons, namely, Harinder Singh and Harpreet Singh. On 4.7.1978 said Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh executed a Will in respect of his 13 kanals 16 marlas of land situated in village Sukhgarh, Tehsil and District Mohali in favour of his two sons, namely, Piara Singh and Amar Singh and two sons of his pre-deceased son Hazoora Singh giving 1/3^rd share each to his sons and 1/3^rd share in equal to the sons of his pre-deceased son. Shamsher Kaur, mother of respondent, Surinder Singh has been one of the daughters of said Ram Kishan and his other daughters had been Baljit Kaur, Charan Kaur and Amar Kaur, petitioners No. 1 to 3. Said Shamsher Kaur instead of challenging the Will and the mutation sanctioned thereon before the civil court, filed a criminal complaint on 19.2.2010 (Annexure P1) in which the Magistrate has passed an order dated 4.8.2010 summoning the petitioners as accused. The allegation of Shamsher Kaur, precisely had been that the affidavit submitted on behalf of the four sisters before the authority sanctioning the mutation had not been signed by her.

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted at the bar that petitioners No.2 and 3, namely, Charan Kaur and Amar Kaur have died during the pendency of the petition. According to him, petitioner No.4 is Randhir Singh, a son of Amar Singh, one of the sons of aforesaid Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh. According to him, the Will had been executed in favour of Piara Singh and Amar Singh the two sons and Harinder Singh and Harpreet Singh the two grandsons of Ram

¶19

Crl. Misc. No.M-31599 of 2010

¶20

¶21

Kishan. He has submitted that since the Will was not executed in favour of Randhir Singh, petitioner No.4, he was not a beneficiary under the Will and there is no allegation that he had been instrumental in getting the affidavit of the four sisters submitted before the revenue officer sanctioning the mutation. He has also added that his father in whose favour the Will has been executed, is still alive. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that before the mutation was sanctioned, the petitioner had already left the country for New Zealand and he was not present in the country on the date of sanctioning of the mutation, i.e., 30.4.2003.

¶22

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Baljit Kaur, petitioner No.1 is one of the four daughters of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh and the Will was not in her favour. According to him, she is though a signatory to the affidavit submitted before the revenue officer sanctioning the mutation, yet there is no allegation that she had obtained the signatures or thumb impression of some one else in the name of Shamsher Kaur.

¶23

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the mutation, Annexure P5, was not sanctioned on the basis of the affidavit in question. According to him, the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of Will of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh which was a registered document. According to him, now a civil suit has been filed on 15.12.2010 in which the Will has been challenged. He has further submitted that under these circumstances, petitioner No.1, Baljit Kaur and respondent no.4, Randhir Singh are not shown to have committed any offence and the proceedings in the criminal complaint

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-31599 of 2010

¶25

¶26

against them are just an abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed. According to him, same is the position with the order dated 4.8.2010 vide which the two petitioners have been summoned to stand trial in the said complaint case.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent, Surinder Singh has submitted, on the other hand, that the petitioner, Randhir Singh has not placed on the file his passport to show that on the date of sanctioning of the mutation, he was not in India. According to him, the complaint case has not been brought with regard to the Will and that the allegations are that the affidavit of Shamsher Kaur is a forged document which was produced before the revenue authorities by the petitioners. According to him, it is wrong to say that the mutation was sanctioned without taking into consideration the affidavit of the four sisters including Shamsher Kaur. He drew my attention, in this regard to Annexure P5 and has submitted that the affidavit was taken into consideration for sanctioning the mutation.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the petitioners have admitted in paragraph 16 of their petition that the thumb impression of Shamsher Kaur does not appear on the affidavit. According to him, the petitioners have even admitted the said fact with reference to the report of Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur and after this admission, they cannot claim that the complaint is abuse of process of law.

¶29

Since petitioners No. 2 and 3, named, Charan Kaur and Amar Kaur are stated to have died, this petition qua them has abated as is ordered separately.

¶30

Crl. Misc. No.M-31599 of 2010

¶31

¶32

The case set up by Shamsher Kaur, one of the daughters of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh, is that the affidavit submitted on behalf of the four daughters of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh had not been thumb marked by her and that the document was forged and that it had been used as a genuine having the thumb impression of all the four daughters of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh before the revenue officer sanctioning the mutation on the basis of the Will dated 4.7.1978. The allegation of Shamsher Kaur that she did not thumb mark the affidavit and that someone else had put his/her thumb impression in the name of the thumb impression of Shamsher Kaur is a fact proved by the report of Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur. In this manner, as has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the complaint is not an abuse of the process of law. However, the question that has to be answered in this case is as to whether there is any such case against the petitioners. The petitioners claim that the proceedings not as such, but against them is abuse of process of law and for that reason they seek quashing of the complaint.

¶33

Annexure P5 is the copy of mutation sanctioned by the revenue officer on 30.4.2003 on the basis of the Will of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh dated 4.7.1978. On 17.4.2003, Amar Singh, a son of Ram Kishan who happens to be the father of Randhir Singh, petitioner No.4, presented a registered Will accompanied by a death certificate of Ram Kishan, on the basis of which mutation of inheritance was entered by the patwari on the same date. After the previous entries were compared with the entry of this mutation, the revenue officer sanctioned the mutation on 30.4.2003 by passing the following order :-

¶34

Crl. Misc. No.M-31599 of 2010

¶35

¶36

“Today in the public gathering on identification of Charanjit Singh, Nambardar, Amar Singh, Legal heir was present who confirmed the death of Ram Kishan and sanctioning of mutation of inheritance on the basis of registered Will, pedigree table prepared by Patwari and attested by Nambardar is correct. The registered WILL is presented and attached, gone through the Death Certificate of Ram Kishan deceased is hereby attached, gone through the Affidavits of Charan Kaur alias Sarno etc. and Harbans Kaur are hereby attached herewith and General Power of Attorney of Harjinder Kaur is also attached. So inheritance as per registered WILL of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh in favour of Piara Singh, Amar Singh having 2/3 share equally and Hansa Singh alias Harinder Singh – Harpreet Singh having 1/3 share equally has been sanctioned.”

¶37

The affidavits of Charan Kaur alias Sarno etc. had been placed before the revenue officer. However, the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the registered Will and not on the basis of the affidavit of four daughters of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh.

¶38

Assuming that one of the considerations for accepting the registered Will as genuine with the revenue officer was this affidavit, the fact is that all the daughters of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh except Shamsher Kaur, had put their thumb impressions on their affidavit. There is no allegation that any one of them had asked some other person to put his/her thumb impression in place of thumb impression of Shamsher Kaur. There is not even an allegation that the affidavit was got thumb

¶39

Crl. Misc. No.M-31599 of 2010

¶40

¶41

marked for Shamsher Kaur by someone else by the beneficiaries of the Will in their presence. When there is no allegation that the affidavit was got thumb marked by some person in the name of Shamsher Kaur in the presence of three other daughters of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh, they cannot be held to have any criminal liability in the matter. It is also pertinent to mention here that the three daughters of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh had not been the beneficiaries of the Will. None of them got a share in the property of Ram Kishan alias Roda Singh and they had no motive to get the affidavit of Shamsher Kaur forged.

¶42

Whether Randhir Singh son of Amar Singh was in India on 30.4.2003 or not when the affidavit purporting to have been sworn by the four daughters of Ram Kishan, had been submitted before the revenue officer and the mutation on the basis of the Will dated 4.7.1978 was sanctioned, is a question of fact and decision of the same requires evidence to be led and appreciated. However, the fact that his father Amar Singh, in whose favour the Will was executed, had been alive on the date of sanction of the mutation and is still alive and that Randhir Singh is not the beneficiary of the Will, are the facts which require no evidence for their proof. It may also be mentioned that there is no allegation in the complaint that Randhir Singh took any active part in preparation of the alleged affidavit. Hence, no criminal liability stands attracted towards him also in this matter.

¶43

For the aforesaid reasons, I find the proceedings of the complaint and the summoning order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P2) made against the petitioners to be an abuse of process of the court. Hence, the proceedings cannot be allowed to continue against them.

¶44

Crl. Misc. No.M-31599 of 2010

¶45

¶46

The petition is, consequently, accepted and complaint No. 1 dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P1) and the order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P2) qua petitioners No. 1 and 4 are quashed.

¶47

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶48

July 13^th , 2012 som

Baljit Kaur and Ors. v. Surinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Kaur and Ors. v. Surinder Singh

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

Atma Ram Garg Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Chahal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Neetu & Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.