Criminal Misc. No. M-29970 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-29970 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.10.2009 Baldev Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Pritam Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Baldev Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned judgment dated 17.5.2008 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur and judgment dated 16.9.2009 (Annexure P.2) rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the respondents have been acquitted. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with a good deal of force that a glance through Annexure P.1 as well as Annexure P.2 would reveal that the accused- respondents have been wrongly acquitted and that being so, these judgments are liable to be set aside. Criminal Misc. No. M-29970 of 2009 (O&M) -2- I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. The facts in brief are that Teja Singh, father of the complainant Baldev Singh had executed a Will dated 2.12.2003 in favour of his four sons. Accordingly, the mutation was sanctioned. Baldev Singh also purchased 1 kanal 18 marlas of land, shares of his brother Sucha Singh and asked the Patwari to enter the mutation which was declined by stating that there is no share of Sucha Singh in the land. On perusal of the record, the complainant came to know that on 14.3.1998, mutation of the land of Mangat Singh (father of Teja Singh) has been sanctioned by Gurnam Singh Patwari accused in connivance with his co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with full force that the learned trial Court in the judgment has observed that mutation No.6116 has been entered and sanctioned on the basis of application filed by the present complainant which is factually wrong and incorrect. There was no occasion with the petitioner to file any such application as the mutation of the land in question on the basis of registered will stands already sanctioned. Learned trial Court has also failed to consider that although name of the respondents No.1 to 3 does not figure in the mutation No.6116 yet, they are the main beneficiaries of the said mutation entered on the basis of false and forged death certificates. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with these submissions. The crux of the matter is that Gurnam Singh Patwari- accused in connivance with his co-accused has sanctioned the mutation with regards to the land of Mangat Singh on 14.3.1998. As per revenue rules, the Patwari is simply to enter the mutation Criminal Misc. No. M-29970 of 2009 (O&M) -3- on the basis of a document and, thereafter, the verification with regards to the genuineness of the document is carried out by the Circle Kanungo and if it is found that the document is genuine then the proceedings are put before the Revenue Officer for sanctioning the mutation. Thus to say the least of it, Gurnam Singh, Patwari was not competent to sanction the mutation. Further, a careful delving into the impugned judgments would reveal that the same do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularities. That being so, no interference is warranted therein. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed in limine. October 26, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE