Criminal Misc. No.M-13494 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No.M-13494 of 2008 Date of decision: 4.12.2009. Harmanohar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 2. Criminal Misc. No.M-20973 of 2008 Gurinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner (in Criminal Misc. No.13494 of 2008) Mr. A.P.S.Shergill, Advocate for the petitioner (in Criminal Misc. No.20973 of 2008) Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana (in both the petitions) Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for respondent no.2. S. D. ANAND, J. The two Petitions have been filed by Harmanohar Singh- (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-13494 of 2008) and Gurinder Singh- (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-20793 of 2008) for quashing of the order dated dated 14.12.2007 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar confirming the order dated 9.5.2006 granted by the learned Trial Magistrate directing frmaing of charge under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, Criminal Misc. No.M-13494 of 2008 -2- **** 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner and certain none petitioners. The petitioner-Harmanohar Singh is in employment of the State and posted as Qanungo at the relevant point of time; while petitioner- Gurinder Singh was posted as Patwari. They shall be hereinafter referred to as Qanungo and Patwari respectively. The facts as apparent from the material obtaining on the file are as under:- Jaswant Singh, first informant, had filed a civil suit against Ajmer Kaur widow of Joginder Singn in order to obtain 1/16th share of the land in suit. That suit was decreed by the Court of the then learned Sub Judge, Kharar, vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.1994. Ajmer Singh father of Harmail Singh, Jarnail Singh and Baljinder Singh, who was party to that suit died on 22.1.1995. A mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs. That mutation was got illegally sanctioned by the legal representatives, giving out therein as if Ajmer Singh (their predecessor-in-interest) had 1/4th share in that land. Infact, the share held by Ajmer Singh therein was to the extent of 1/16th. In the meantime that land was acquired by the Punjab Government for extension of Urban Estate at Mohali vide award No.448 dated 22.2.1995. On the incorrect premise of Ajmer Singh having 1/4th share in that land his legal representatives obtained a higher amount of compensation. The petitioners are being prosecuted by the Police of Police Station, Sohana in case FIR (No.76 dated 29.7.2000 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The allegations that they were party to the conspiracy vide which legal representatives of Ajmer Singh were able to obtain larger amount of compensation as against their lessor entitlement. Criminal Misc. No.M-13494 of 2008 -3- **** Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued in commonality that the petitioners being public servant had merely discharged their duties by making relevant entries in the revenue record and they could not be held accountable for whatever may have inadvertently occurred in the course of the transaction aforementioned. Learned counsel for the Qanungo-petitioner argued that no blame could at all be fastned upon that petitioner because he conducted verification of the entries made by the Patwari-petitioner on the basis of whatever revenue documentation was produced before him by the latter. Insofar as the Patwari-petitioner is concerned, it was argued that the dereliction of law, if at all could be attributable only to the legal representatives of Ajmer Singh and no part of the blame could be attributed to him. As per the allegations, the entitlement of Ajmer Singh to 1/16th share of the land under reference had been upheld vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.1994. he was, thus, not entitled to even an inch in excess of that land. It follows therefrom that his legal representatives could also not claim entitlement of any share to which their predecessor-in-interest was entitled. Insofar as the Patwari-petitioner is concerned, he was under a legal obligation to enter the revenue mutation of inheritance in the light of the contents of the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1994. He was also duty bond to make documentation based presentation to the Qanungo- petitioner for verification. Likewise, the Qanungo-petitioner was under a legal duty to compare the relevant mutation entries with the entire relatable revenue documentation and he cannot be heard to aver that he is exonerated of allegation of the conspiracy just because he made the comparison on the basis of only that material which was produced before him by the Patwari-petitioner. Since the revenue record makes a mention Criminal Misc. No.M-13494 of 2008 -4- **** mutation No.4056, it was incumbent upon both the petitioners i.e. Qanungo and Patwari to have compared the entries made by them with the contents of the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1994. It will, ofcourse, be a question of fact to be established at the trial that whether the presentation made by the petitioners to justify a charge of conspiracy or not. The Trial Court will be in a position to record a finding whether the petitioner herein had been proved to a party to the impugned conspiracy or not. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petitions are held to be denuded of merit and are ordered to be dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. December 04, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Criminal Misc. No.M-13494 of 2008 -5- ****