IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 9001 of 2009 Date of decision: 31.3.2009 Sarabjit Kaur and another ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed for directing the respondents to restrain themselves from conducting any inquiry/investigation or any proceedings regarding an application bearing No.2407 – ADGP dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure P2) submitted by Kulbir Kaur wife of Navtej Singh as the substratum/gravamen of the entire matter is already subjudice before the Court of competent jurisdiction by way of presentation of challan as well as supplementary challan against the petitioners in case FIR No.389 dated 14.11.2006 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). Petitioner No.1 is the widow of Kashmir Singh and Petitioner No.2 is the son of Kashmir Singh. Said Kashmir Singh had solemnized two marriages. His first wife was Varinder Kaur. From the said wedlock, he (Kashmir Singh) had two daughters namely Kulbir Kaur and Inderbir Kaur. Varinder Kaur – the first wife of Kashmir Singh died in the year 1972. It is after her death that Kashmir Singh solemnized his marriage with Sarabjit Kaur (petitioner No.1). From the said marriage, they had two sons namely Parminder Singh (petitioner No.2) and Harinder Crl. Misc. No. M- 9001 of 2009 [2] Pal Singh. Kashmir Singh died in the year 1983 leaving behind two daughters namely Kulbir Kaur and Inderbir Kaur from his earlier marriage with Varinder Kaur. Besides, he left behind Sarabjit Kaur (petitioner No.1) and her two sons namely Parminder Singh (petitioner No.2) and Harinder Pal Singh. The dispute in the case with regard to the estate of Kashmir Singh (deceased). In regard to the said dispute, FIR No.389 dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P3) was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B IPC. The said FIR has been registered on the statement of Kulbir Kaur daughter of Kashmir Singh from his first wife Varinder Kaur and Dalbir Kaur wife of Jai Pal Singh Dhillon. Dalbir Kaur is the maternal aunt (Mami) of Kulbir Kaur. In respect of the said FIR (Annexure P3), inquiry was conducted by Sh. Manminder Singh, Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Amrtisar. It was observed that in respect of the land measuring 8 kanals of Kashmir Singh situated in the area of Gumtala Sub Urban, Amritsar, she (complainant) should approach the revenue authorities. It was alleged by Kulbir Kaur daughter of Kashmir Singh (deceased) that Sarabjit Kaur (petitioner No.1) had got the land of her father (Kashmir Singh) registered in the name of her sons Parminder Singh (petitioner No.2) and Harinder Pal Singh after obtaining her (Kulbir Kaur’s) signatures on blank papers, whereas she herself gave power of attorney to Sarabjit Kaur (petitioner No.1) and Parminder Singh (petitioner No.2) on 13.2.1996. Parminder Singh (petitioner No.2) executed the sale deed of land measuring 8 kanals 3 marlas in favour of Harinder Pal Singh (brother of petitioner No.2) on the basis of the said power of attorney on 27.11.2001. It was also alleged that Sarabjit Kuar (petitioner No.1) had got mutation of land of inheritance of 8 kanals in the area of Gumtala Sub Urban, Amritsar and she had got the mutation of the aforesaid land entered in her name. After going through the documents, it was found that mutation of half land sanctioned in the name of Crl. Misc. No. M- 9001 of 2009 [3] Parminder Singh (petitioner No.2) and Harinder Pal Singh (brother of Parminder Singh – petitioner No.2) and remaining half share is still pending. Therefore, it was stated that regarding this the complainant Kulbir Kaur should approach the revenue authorities. Another inquiry was conducted by Sh. S.S. Mann, Superintendent of Police, City-2, Amritsar who also vide his report dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure P5) considered the allegations levelled by Kulbir Kaur. Copies of the inquiry reports of Sh. Manminder Singh, Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Amritsar and that of Sh. S.S. Mann, Superintendent of Police, City-2, Amritsar have been placed on record as Annexures P4 and P5. Another inquiry was conducted by Dr. Kaushtab Sharma, IPS, Superintendent of Police, City-I, Amritsar who also dealt with the allegations of Kulbir Kaur and his report is on record as (Annexure P6). In all the reports, it was submitted that the complainant Kulbir Kaur needs to approach the revenue authorities. In the said inquiries, a specific reference was made to the application No.2407-ADGP dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure P2). It is submitted that now the police has again taken up the complaint (Annexure P2) and even though challan has been filed in the Court the Police is likely to register another FIR. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Police has filed the charge report (challan) in the case on 10.9.2008. The petitioners were declared innocent in the challan that was filed. However, the police thereafter filed a supplementary challan on 18.11.2008 in which it was found that petitioner No.1 Sarabjit Kaur was liable for the purchase of land of Jai Pal Singh vide sale deeds dated 23.4.1997 and 15.2.2001 through the attorney of Jai Pal Singh namely Kulwant Singh who is the brother of the petitioner No.1. Jaipal Singh is the maternal uncle (Mama) of Kulbir Kaur complainant. The question that whether the Police is further inquiring into the matter, it may be noticed, is only an apprehension of the petitioners and there is nothing to show that the Police has further inquired into the matter. Crl. Misc. No. M- 9001 of 2009 [4] Be that as it may. In case further evidence i.e. oral and documentary comes on record, the police can carry out further investigations in terms of Section 173 (8) CrPC. However, the allegations being based only on apprehension, it would be improper to go into the same at this stage. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 31, 2009 amit