Criminal Revision No. 1918 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1918 of 2006 Date of Decision: August 19, 2010 Pirthipal Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Mukhtiar Singh and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging order dated 16.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur setting aside the order whereby charge against the petitioner was framed under Sections 468,471 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). Pirthipal Singh, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.1 and Rajesh Kumar, Patwari and Gurdeep Singh Patwari under Sections 419,420, 467,468,471,34 IPC. It was alleged therein that the accused in connivance with each other had tampered with the revenue Criminal Revision No. 1918 of 2006 2 record with a view to harm the interest of the complainant and a stay order was passed in favour of the complainant on 21.11.1989 and Gurdip Singh, Patwari made an entry in the rapat roznamcha qua the same but did not record the factum of grant of stay order by the Civil Court in jamabandi for the year 1984-85 to help Mukhtiar Singh, respondent No.1. The accused were ordered to be summoned to face the trial under Sections 417,468,471/34 IPC by the trial Court vide order dated 24.8.1998. During the pendency of the trial, accused Rajesh Kumar and Gurdeep Singh moved an application for their discharge and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 11.5.2001. Rajesh Kumar Patwari and Gurdeep Singh, Patwari moved Criminal Misc. No. 34694-M of 2001 seeking quashing of the complaint qua them and this Court on 9.10.2001 passed the following order :- “In complaint, Annexure P1 of Prithi Pal Singh against the petitioners and others, the petitioners were summoned under Sections 417, 468, 471 and 34 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepue. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner No.2, Gurdip Singh was posted as Patwari in the year 1989 and the complainant had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in which the Sub Judge had issued stay order on 21.11.1989. The Patwari, Gurdip Singh, was duly informed and he had made a mention in the DDR at No. 154 on 15.12.1989 and issued a certified copy of the same but did not make entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 regarding the factum of stay. It is stated that this was being done in order to help Mukhtiar Singh @ Kartar Singh, Constable. Now the parties Criminal Revision No. 1918 of 2006 3 have compromised. They have filed written compromise, Annexure P2. Counsel for complainant states that he had got no objection if the proceedings against them are quashed. Since, the parties have compromised and the error on the part of Gurdip Singh, Patwari, was not intentional, so the complaint, Annexure P1, titled Pirthi Pal Singh vs. Rajesh Kumar, Patwari and others pending in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Ferozepur, under Sections 419,420, 467,468, 471,34 IPC is quashed qua the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.” Vide order dated 13.3.2004, a charge was ordered to be framed against respondent No.1 Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 preferred a revision petition and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while allowing the said revision petition (in para 9), has observed as under:- “9. The above brief resume of the facts of the case clearly shows that main allegations are levelled against the patwaries of the area wherein they were alleged to have tampered with the revenue record in order to help the first revision petitioner. There is nothing on record to attribute any overt or covert role to the first revision petitioner. He is only stated to have filed copy of the khasra girdawari obtained from the patwari before the civil Court. Against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1993 passed in civil suit filed by the second revision petitioner an appeal No. 123/21.8.1993 was preferred in the court of Shri A.N.Jindal, the Criminal Revision No. 1918 of 2006 4 then learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur which culminated into a judgment dated 29.4.1996. While passing the said judgment the learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur found the khasra girdawari produced by the first revision petitioner to be a bogus document and the learned court of Addl District Judge, Ferozpure wrote a separate letter to the Collector, Ferozpur for taking action against Rajinder Kumar patwari accordingly. In the said judgment nothing has been mentioned about overt or covert role of the first revision petitioner in the said case. The learned court of Additional District Judge had only directed an action to be taken against Patwari Rajesh Kumar. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 9.10.2001, referred to above, has also observed that error what so ever on the part of other Patwari Gurdeep Singh was not intentional. In view of these circumstances since the complaint qua main accused stood quashed by the Hon'ble High Court and there is nothing on record to attribute any overt or covert act to the first revision petitioner to my mind no case was made out for framing of charge against him. The learned trial Court had committed a grave error in framing charge against him and order framing of charge is liable to be set aside.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while allowing the revision petition, are sound reasons. The complaint qua accused Rajesh Kumar ,Patwari and Gurdeep Singh, Patwari was quashed by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2001 on the basis of a compromise and it has also been held that the error on the part of Gurdeep Singh, Patwari was not Criminal Revision No. 1918 of 2006 5 intentional. This shows that the factum of passing of the stay order by the Civil Court having been not reflected in the jamabandi was not intentional but was due to inadvertence. Since the lapse on the part of the Patwari was not intentional,therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 had any role to play at the time of preparation of jamabandi. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly quashed the order whereby charge was framed against respondent No.1. No interference by this Court is called for. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 19, 2010 arya