Dismissed

Begh Raj v. Banwari Lal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2014CRM-M/120/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged orders dismissing a criminal complaint for cheating and forgery alleging unauthorized withdrawal of funds from a deceased's bank accounts. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that amounts were released based on a valid succession certificate and no challenge to its validity was made.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's appeal under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Begh Raj Vs Banwari Lal and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M-120 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CRM-M-120 of 2012 Date of Decision: 21.04.2014

Beg Raj

... Petitioner

Versus

Banwari Lal and others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

None for the respondents.

¶14

MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Beg Raj, the petitioner herein, filed Criminal Complaint No.443-1 of 2008 against the respondents on the allegations that in spite of the fact that he was armed with an order of probate of Will of Sheo Kauri, the respondents withdrew money from the bank lying in the saving bank account as also in the fixed deposits pertaining to said Sheo Kauri. His complaint, however, was dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa (for short, 'trial Court'), vide order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P-2). A Criminal Revision No.165 of 2009 brought by the petitioner to challenge order dated 10.06.2009 was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa (for short, 'revisional Court'), vide judgment dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure P-3). To challenge orders dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) and dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure P-3), petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶16

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.04.24 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-120 of 2012

¶18

-2-

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

It is very strongly argued on behalf of the petitioner that the amount lying in the saving bank account and FDRs pertaining to Sheo Kauri could not be released in favour of the respondents in the face of an order of probate operating in favour of the petitioner as this fact was in the knowledge of the bank authorities.

¶21

However, learned trial Court in its judgment has rejected this plea of the petitioner by observing as under:-

¶22

“ 6. As far as involvement of accused No.1 and 2 in the crime is concerned, it is again worth mentioning here that their no such involvement is made out. As per allegation of the complainant accused No.1 and 2 in collusion with accused No.3 to 5 have been instrumental in disbursing the amount in favour of Bahadur Ram despite the fact that the son of the complainant had moved an application before the bank that the amount should not be disbursed to anybody. But in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand wherein once amount has been disbursed to Bahadur on the basis of succession certificate by the accused No.1 and 2 in their official duty, certainly no guilty intention on the part of the accused is made out to cheat the complainant as alleged. Though their act may be negligent or warranting some civil remedy in favour of the complainant but no mesne rea is made out against the accused persons to commit the offence of forgery or cheating as has been alleged. Since the accused No.1 and 2 in their official duty have released the money on the basis of succession certificate, no case is made out to summon them for a criminal offence. ”

¶23

The submission put up on behalf of the petitioner against the order

¶24

of the learned trial Court has been elaborately dealt with by the learned revisional Court in the following manner:-

¶25

“ 8. PW1 D.R.Shakerwal, Manager, has stated that the amount was withdrawn by Bahadur on the basis of Succession Certificate. The judgment dated 5.8.2006 vide which the Succession Certificate was issued to deceased

¶26

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.04.24 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-120 of 2012

¶28

-3-

¶29

Bahadur, does not mention that Banwari Lal the manager of Punjab National Bank was examined on the point whether the Succession Certificate could be issued to Bahadur or not. He simply proved on record different accounts of deceased Sheo Kauri. The revisionist while appearing as PW2 simply asserted that Bahadur was an old man and he was incapable of performing commercial activities. In fact it was respondents No.4 and 5 who forced/instigated him to withdraw the amount from the bank relating to Sheo Kauri. Since the respondents No.1 & 2 disbursed the amount after receiving Succession Certificate, therefore, no criminal liability can be fastened upon them because it is an admitted fact that letter of probate was supplied by the revisionist later on. Besides no cogent evidence was adduced regarding instigation on the part of respondents No.4 & 5. The facts and circumstances of this case further show that the dispute in hand is simply of civil nature and as per law cited by learned counsel for the respondents, the revisionist can initiate civil proceedings to recover the amount provided it is disbursed without any authority. The law cited by learned counsel for the revisionist accordingly is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ”

¶30

After going through the contents of the complaint and on consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by the learned courts below because it comes out from the record that the amounts in question were released on the basis of a succession certificate issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the validity/sustainability thereof.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

(MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶33

21.04.2014 adhikari

¶34

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.04.24 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Begh Raj v. Banwari Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Begh Raj v. Banwari Lal 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

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Seema and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amar Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baba Major Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Basant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another