Crl.Rev No. 1452 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No. 1452 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.09.2011 Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This petition assails the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot accepting the revision petition and setting aside the order dated 10.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridkot summoning the accused (herein referred as the petitioner) under sections 420/465/468/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. One Sukhdev Singh had sold a plot measuring 54' x 30' yards (i.e. 6 marlas) i.e. 1/3rd share of Khasra No.7069/1/1 (0-18) situated at Faridkot vide sale deed dated 28.12.2004 to the respondent Ravinder Pal Singh for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Since Crl.Rev No. 1452 of 2010 2 Sukhdev Singh had already given 9' out of said plot on the northern side to the complainant and therefore, the wall on the northern side was constructed by him alone. Original sale deed executed by Sukhdev Singh in favour of respondent Ravinder Pal Singh does not describe about the nature of the wall. However, Ravinder Pal Singh and Budhi Singh, accused Nos.3 and 4 produced copy of sale deed in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot which indicates that northern wall of the plot is joint of Sukhdev Singh and the complainant. The complainant, aggrieved by the alteration in the copy of the sale deed kept in the office of the Sub Registrar, had filed this complaint. The trial court vide order dated 10.05.2008 took cognizance of the case, when the aforesaid order was challenged. The revisional court took adverse view and quashed the summoning order. Heard. Ravinder Pal Singh respondent is a buyer, whereas Bhupinder Singh complainant/petitioner (herein referred as the petitioner) has an adjoining plot. He has nothing to do with the land purchased by Ravinder Pal Singh. He only disputes the nature of the northern wall of his plot which touches the plot of Ravinder Pal Singh (vendor). Whether the alteration or addition was made in the copy of the sale deed is a controversy to be decided by the civil court. The complainant/petitioner has not shown any wrongful loss caused to him on account of alleged alteration in the sale deed. Even copy of Crl.Rev No. 1452 of 2010 3 the sale deed was produced by Gursahib Singh, Advocate, as stated by CW 2, and not produced by Ravinder Pal Singh. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the deed writer was negligent in scribing/typing the sale deed i.e. the original sale deed and second copy which is retained in the office of the Sub Registrar and for his negligence, Ravinder Pal Singh cannot be put to dock. Still the question whether the wall is joint of the parties or is exclusive of the complainant, is to be decided by the Civil Court. The trial court appears to have taken right view of the matter. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed in limine. (A.N.Jindal) 07.09.2011 Judge rp