IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.535 of 1992 Date of Decision : May 07, 2010 Harbhajan Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Kang, Advocate for respondent No.2. T.P.S. Mann, J. This revision is directed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar on 21.5.1992 whereby the revision filed by complainant-respondent No.2 against the order dated 2.12.1988 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar was accepted and the lower Court was directed to frame charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 465/466/109 IPC and to try the case according to law. The facts of the case, in brief, were that Rikhia- respondent No.2, filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 465/466/109 IPC. It was alleged therein that Harbhajan Singh petitioner was a big land owner. His Criminal Revision No.535 of 1992 land was declared surplus in the year 1976 in two khasra Nos. 14/21 and 15/12/1 measuring 12 K 18 M. The said land was allotted to complainant, being a landless cultivator. The possession of the said land was delivered to the complainant on 19.7.1977 and a compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- was deposited by him. It was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner, later on, filed an application before the Collector Agrarian, Anandpur Sahib for excluding the khasra number allotted to the complainant in surplus land in exchange of some other land. At that time, Surjit Singh petitioner was working as Patwari Agrarian and dealing with these matters. The application was filed by Harbhajan Singh petitioner wherein the complainant agreed to exchange his allotment with him for another piece of land. In his statement, the complainant agreed to exchange khasra No.14/21 measuring 7 K 18 M with khasra No.17/17 in ownership of Harbhajan Singh petitioner. On the basis of statement of the complainant as well as of Harbhajan Singh petitioner, the possession of khasra No.14/21 was taken by Harbhajan Singh petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that the possession of khasra No.17/17, exchanged in lieu of khasra No.14/21, was not given by Harbhajan Singh petitioner. The complainant alleged that khasra No.15/12/1 was also mentioned in the said statement before the Court whereas the complainant had never agreed in the Court to exchange said khasra number. It was alleged that interpolation in the statement of the -2- Criminal Revision No.535 of 1992 complainant as well as that of Harbhajan Singh petitioner was made. On this, offences under Sections 465/466/109 IPC were made out. On the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the petitioners were summoned and they put in appearance. The complainant then led evidence for the purpose of charge. However, after hearing the counsel for the complainant and the petitioners, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar held that no case was made out for framing charges against the petitioners. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the complainant filed a revision which was accepted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar and the lower Court was directed to frame charges against the petitioners. The order passed by the revisional Court is subject matter of challenge in the present revision. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Surjit Singh petitioner has since died. When learned counsel for respondent No.2 was confronted with the same, he replied that he had no information to the contrary. In view of the above, the criminal proceedings against Surjit Singh-petitioner have to be disposed of as having abated. -3- Criminal Revision No.535 of 1992 According to the complainant, interpolations were made in the court records, i.e. in the statements of the complainant and that of Harbhajan Singh-petitioner recorded by the Collector. Vide judgment dated 6.8.1987, learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Anandpur Sahib held that forgery was committed. The findings recorded were upheld by Additional District Judge, Ropar on 14.5.1990. The forgery was committed during the proceedings pending before the Collector for deciding the application for allotment of the land. In such a situation, provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. require filing of the complaint by the Court concerned and not by a private individual. It was the Collector before whom the proceedings were pending and, therefore, the complaint could be filed only by the Collector by alleging as to whether any interpolation had been made in the record or the alleged interpolation was only a clerical. mistake, which he had corrected himself. No such complaint had been filed by the Collector, instead, it is private individual, i.e. respondent No.2, who had come up by way of a criminal complaint for proceeding against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 465/466/109 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar did not find any prima facie case against the petitioners and, accordingly, discharged them. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar accepted the revision of the complainant and directed the lower Court to frame charges against the -4- Criminal Revision No.535 of 1992 petitioners for offences under Sections 465/466/109 IPC by wrongly accepting the revision filed by the complainant. In view of the above, the revision qua Harbhajan Singh-petitioner is accepted and impugned order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar is restored. The revision qua Surjit Singh-petitioner is disposed of with the observation that on account of his death, the criminal proceedings pending against him have abated. (T.P.S. MANN) May 07, 2010 JUDGE satish -5-