Crl. Revision No. 1542 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1542 of 2005 Date of Decision:May 21, 2009 G.S.Minhas ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. K.S.Nalwa,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab Mr.J.K.Verma, Advocate, for Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4 *** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 6.1.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar whereby the cancellation report submitted by the police was accepted and the accused was discharged. The case of the petitioner as noticed by the trial court in para 2 Crl. Revision No. 1542 of 2005 -2- of the impugned order dated 6.1.2005 is as under:- “The complaint in brief was that the complainant was residing with his family since 1957 in Chandigarh and he had landed property at village Padhiana, Jalandhar and was co-owner and co-sharer with Joginder Singh and four sons of deceased brother Hans Raj Singh and was still owners in possession to 1/3 share. It also included one residential plot consisting of Khasra No. 1923/2K in which he had 1/3 share. On 6.5.2002, he came to know that his 1/3 share in the said plot had already been disposed of by Joginder Singh by forging his signatures on the sale deed dated 18.3.1987 and by way of impersonation in connivance with Baldev Singh who purchased the said share of his plot by hatching a criminal conspiracy along with attesting witnesses Bhag Singh, Charanjit Lal in order to deprive him of his vested rights by cheating. He came to know of the transaction on 8.5.2002 when Harnek Singh handed over a copy of disputed sale of property to him, which was never executed by him. He was never apprised by his brother about the said document. The said sale deed was prepared and executed by the accused in connivance with witnesses by forging his signatures. Joginder Singh, Baldev Singh and other witnesses Bhag Singh have specific knowledge at the time of executing the forged sale deed and at the time of its presentation before the Sub-Registrar that he was not physically present there at that time. The said land was in possession of the accused Harnek Singh and the mutation proceedings have Crl. Revision No. 1542 of 2005 -3- also been entered and sanctioned by the accused before the revenue authorities. He had no knowledge regarding the mutation. No notice was ever sent to him by the revenue officials. He also requested all the accused to admit true facts and to agree to set aside the forged sale deed vide his notice dated 8.5.2002 but they r4efused to admit his claim. On the basis of the claim the FIR was lodged and the matter was investigated and the accused persons namely Harnek Singh, Joginder Singh and Charanjit Lal were joined into investigation who stated that the complainant had falsely implicated them. Joginder Singh had already filed a case of defamation against the complainant. The relevant documents were considered in the investigation and the opinion of hand writing expert Sh. Fateh Chand was sought in the presence of counsels of both the parties, and it was concluded by the hand writing expert that the sale deed bore the signatures of the complainant himself.” After investigation, cancellation report was submitted and the learned trial court while accepting the cancellation report had observed as under in para 4 of the impugned order dated 6.1.2005:- “The cancellation report accordingly was produced before me. I have heard the arguments forwarded by the complainant himself and also by his counsel and have also heard the ld. APP and the counsel for the accused persons and have also gone through the documents on record. The contention of the complainant is that he never signed any register of sale deed and that the accused persons had forged sale deed dated Crl. Revision No. 1542 of 2005 -4- 18.3.1987. He however could not justify the receipt of Rs. 13000/- through bank draft on 19.3.87 that merely eight days before the execution of the sale deed. It has been sufficiently concluded that the complainant had received the said amount from the purchaser. Even the hand writing expert has clearly concluded that the register of sale deed bore the signature of the complainant. Further more, the complaint has been initiated by the complainant after lapse of 17 years of execution of sale deed. Keeping all these circumstances in view, not even the prima facie case is made out against the accused persons and I have also concluded that the complaint was forged one and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant. Accordingly, the cancellation report is accepted and the accused persons are discharged.” Thus, the learned trial court while accepting the cancellation report has found that the complaint in question had been lodged after 17 years of the execution of the sale deed (Annexure P-4). The sale deed was executed on 18.3.1987 and the petitioner had deposited Rs. 13000/- through bank draft in his account on 10.3.1987 i.e. about 8 days prior to the execution of the sale deed, which led to the inference that the petitioner had received sale consideration. Although in the sale deed Annexure P-4, the amount of sale consideration has been mentioned as Rs. 6000/-. generally, the sale deeds are got executed for lesser amount whereas in fact, the sale consideration is much more. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the Crl. Revision No. 1542 of 2005 -5- considered opinion that the reasons given by the trial court while accepting the cancellation report are sound reasons and calls for no interference. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 21, 2009 PARAMJIT