Criminal Misc.-M No. 27316 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 27316 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Santokh Singh alias Tarlok Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. M. S. Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Cost paid. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 53 dated 30.7.2011, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station, Nurmahal, District Jalandhar. The complainant is one Joginder Singh. It is alleged that the petitioners have forged will of deceased-Mukhtiar Singh, i.e., husband of petitioner No. 2, father of petitioner No. 1 and grand-father of petitioner No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant in the present case cannot possibly be aggrieved of the will executed by deceased-Mukhtiar Singh as he is not in line of succession. The will was executed by deceased-Mukhtiar Singh in favour of petitioner No. 2. None of other legal heirs, namely, two sons and one daughter raised any objection. The petitioners got mutation of the land sanctioned pertaining to the aforesaid land standing in the name of Mukhtiar Singh in the revenue record. If there is any allegation that Mukhtiar Singh had sold Criminal Misc.-M No. 27316 of 2011 [2] land more than his share in a joint khewat, the petitioners cannot be made liable for that. After sanction of mutation, petitioner No. 2 had raised loan from the bank, which is being re-paid regularly. At the time of sanction of loan, the bank got the title of the property verified and did not find any defect therein. No one has challenged the genuineness of the will by filing a civil suit. Initially, the mutation was sanctioned by Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The order was re-called. Appeal against that order was dismissed by the Collector. Revision filed by petitioner No. 2 against the order of the Collector is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, where status quo regarding possession has been directed to be maintained. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that father of the complainant had purchased a portion of land from deceased-Mukhtiar Singh about 50 years ago. They are in possession of the same, but apparently that was not given effect to in the revenue record. The petitioners created a will of deceased-Mukhtiar Singh in 2008 and on the basis thereof got the mutation sanctioned in favour of petitioner No. 2. Deceased-Mukhtiar Singh used to sign in Urdu, whereas the will has been signed in Punjabi. One of the witnesses of the will, namely, Hardev Singh was aged about 38 years in 2008. He has been shown to be a witness on the will allegedly executed on 20.2.1983, meaning thereby at that time he was a minor. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. From the facts on record, it is apparent that a will of deceased- Mukhtiar Singh has been projected by the petitioners having bequeathed his property in favour of his wife, namely, Gurbax Kaur (petitioner No. 2). None of the legal heirs, who could inherit the property of Mukhtiar Singh, had any objection. Mutation was sanctioned in her favour by the revenue authorities, though 25 years after the death of Mukhtiar Singh. The case set up by the complainant is that in fact, his father had purchased the share of property from deceased-Mukhtiar Singh about 50 years back. However, still the facts, as have been projected, show that there was some portion of land standing in the ownership of deceased-Mukhtiar Singh, the mutation Criminal Misc.-M No. 27316 of 2011 [3] of which was sanctioned in favour of his widow (petitioner No. 2) in the year 2008 on the basis of will produced by his widow. If Mukhtiar Singh had sold more than his share in a joint khewat, apparently the petitioners cannot be faulted with. In the present case, the bank had also advanced loan to petitioner No. 2 on mortgage of the property, which was transferred in her name on the basis of the alleged will. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody. They are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 14.10.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.10.2011 mk