e 438 ninal Misc No 43367 of 2004 e 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 Criminal Misc No M 43367 of 2004 Date of decisi0n2 727 NardevSinghand another Petitioners Versus m Stateof Punjaband another Respondents 0 C0 I 2 Criminal Misc No M6932 of 2008 C9 I Subedar Nar Slnghand another Z Petitioners 2 Versus StateofPunjaband another I Respondents 0 Z CO CORAM HONBLE MSJSTICE RITU BAHRI awm Z Present Mr ILPS DeoI Senior Advocatewith Mr ICS Brar Advocate Qe for the petitioners Mr RaghbirChaudharySr DAGPunjab forrespondentNoltate Mr AnmoI Rattan Sidhu Senior Advocate with Mr JasdeepSinghAdvocate for respondentNo RITU BAHRI 1 This order shall disposeof both the abovementionedcrimlnal miscellaneouspetitionsas both are arisingfrom the same FIR For the sake of convenience the facts are beingtaken up from Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.02 15: 52 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 439 1 mn V CriminalMisc No 43367 of 2004 4 4 CriminalMisc No M43367 of 2004 Thispetitionunder Section 482 CrPC for quashingof FIR No89 dated2082002 under Sections 420419465467468471 and 120B IPC at PoliceStation Kotwaii Bathindaand the reportunderSection 173 Cr Brieffacts of the case as per the petitioners are that the petitioners 1 other persons purchasedIandmeasuring32 bighasat Patti Mehna 0 Bathindafrom one Saraswati Devi on 20 1963 by meansof a sale deed 0 PetitionerNo l had purchased a share in this Iandin the name of two daughters I 9 whowere minors at that stageAs per the revenue recordsthis Iand was allotted to SaraswatiDevi on 2831958 vide allotment No196 This Iand was comprised Z in Khasra No733 3234 and 3732 Saraswati Devi was also owner in oossessIon of some Iand in Shree Ganganagar and proofof her ownershipwas C attachedwith the sale deed registered on 20 1963 One GaneshaSinghwas I r0 allottedIand in Khasra No3734 vide the same notificationin which Saraswati Z Devi was allotted Iand in the year 1958 Out of this 13 bighasof Iandhad been m acquiredfor construction of Civil Station in Bathinda in the year 1957e58 The m petitionersare owners in possession of the Iand since the sale deed was Z executed and the Iand was mutated in their names after registration of the sale deecl Karam Singhson of Ganesha Singhfiled a suit for possession on 1451974 againstSukhdev Singhand others including TapteshKaur daughterof NardevSingh petitionerNo1 This suit was for possessionof 10 bighasof Iand comprisedin Khasra No73411 situated in Mehna Patti Bathinda on the basis of redemptionof mortgagefor asum of Rs10001as per jamabandifor the year 196768 This suit was dismissed on 1611978 lnexure P The plaintiHs filed no appealagainstthis order Karam Singhand others created a mortgage Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.02 15: 52 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 440 V CriminalMisc No4a 43367 of 2004 3 SP deed whichwas oral Shri JoginderSinghSDO ClvillBathindainspected the spotand did not find the in possession of the Iand The report of the SDO CivillBathindadated 212983 is Annexure P2 As per the saidplanpreparedpossession of the petitioners over a specificpieceof Iandwas markedand the applicationof Karam Singhwas dismissed Mohinder singh and SurjitSinghsons of Karam Singh son of 1 tr Ganesha Singhand one SardaraSinghfiled a sult for permanentinjunction the defendants from interfering into the peacefulpossessionof the 0 0 plaintiffover the Iand measuring13 bighascomprisedlll khasra No373411 I C5 khewatNo2242 Khatauni No581 situatedat Patti Mehna Bathinda against TejinderSinghand others TapteshKaur daughter of petitionerNol was one of Z the defendants in the saidsuit The plaintdated3031987 is attachedwith this 1 petitlonas Annexure F3 The suit was filed in 1987 and ultimately was r dismissedbyAdditionalClvilJudge6SeniorDivisionlAmbala videhis orderdated 1411997 Annexure P4J No appealor revIsion was flled by the plaintiff C Z againstthis decision OO Mohinder Singhand Surjitsinghalongwith one Sardara Singhfiled another sult for permanentinjunctionagainstBaldev Singhand others including Z Rattan Dev were dropped as theycouldnot be served HarbansSingloetitioner Qm No was impleadedas one of the defendants in the said suit on 1772002 In the application under Order 39 RuIes 1 and 2 CPC status qua was requiredto be maintainedwith regardto possessionof the suit propertyIn appealagainstthis order the Additional District Judgecame to the conclusion that the possession over the suit propertyof the plaintiffhad not been established and takinginto consideration the previousIitigationbetween the partiesdismissed the appeal vide order dated 03092003 and a revision againstthis order is pendingin this Court in Revision NoA736 of 2003 Petitioner No l JaspalSinghhas filed a Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.02 15: 52 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 441 1 e Criminal Misc No 43367 of 2004 4 4r complaint on behalf of Mohlnder SinghandSurjitSinghsons of Karam Singhson of GaneshaSinghand SardaraSinghson of Harnam Singhon the basis of which FIR under Sections 419420465467468471 and 1208 IPC lnexure P51 has been registeredThe allegation in the FIR is that some other person was made to impersonate Saraswati Devi and the sale deed executedat GangaNagariS false and fabricated document It is worthwhileto mention here that Jaspal 1 Singhwho has filed the presentcomplainthad been prosecutedby petitioner No l for offence under Sections 341447 and 506 IPC he had been summoned 0 0 in the case on 0722001 and in order to create a counter blastthe criminal case C9 has been registered againstthe petitioners I The petitionerhas soughtquashing of FIR on the following grounds Z 2 1 The registeredsale deed 202 1963 is signedas we as thumb r markedby SaraswatiDevi andattested by her son Shri Ram Kishan I SehgaI She alongwithher familyhas shifted to Aasam after r disclosingher propertyat Bathinda No one has raised any Z objectionto the said sale deed 2 The sale in questionwas executed more than 40 years ago As per Oo Section 90 this would be the sale dated202 1963presumedto be 7 dulyexecuted and decidedby the person whom it proposedto be Z executed or attested The sale deed was executed in Sri Ganga tl Nagar Rajasthanl becauseregistration fee chargeable was much Iesswhat was chargeable in Punjab 3 The prosecutionhas not been able to prove that the sale deed is a forgeddocument The petitionershad made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police Bathindaon 152004 and this representationhas not been consideredby the policewhile Oling the chailan in the above mentioned FIR Singh has been impleadedas partyto this petitionon 1992005 vide order dated 195005 bythis Court Replyhas been filed It has been pleadedthat the plotsituated in khasraNo73411 was allotted to Ganesha Singh Mohinder Singhand Surjit Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.02 15: 52 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 442 1 r CriminalMisc No1 43367 of 2004 5 b Singhare grandsonsof GaneshaSlnghand they are recorded as owner in in the revenue records In this Iand 3113 share had been byGanesha Singhwith GurdeialSinghand SukhdevSinghwhich was redeemedvide order dated 7 1983and the possessionwas handedover to them Petitionersclaimed themselvesto be owners of thesaid Iand on the basis of a forgedand fabricated sale deed dated 202 1963executedby one Smt 1 SurasatiDevi ln their favour at Gnganagar2ajasthanlSurasati Devi was C allottedIand in Khasra N03732 3733 and 3734 and thereafter she soid the suit 0 C40 Iandto the petitionersmeasuring16 Bighas7 Biswasallottedin Khasra No3734 I C Mutation had been entered qua the samein the name of respondentNo It I has been mentioned that 13 Blghas2 Biswas out of 16 Bighasand 7 Biswas Z allotted to Smt Surasati Devi out of KhasraNo734 had beenacquiredand she has also taken compensation for the said Iand In sale deed qua the sameIand is a nullityand at the best the vendees stepinto shoes of SurastiDevi The I reievant documents in relation to Annexure Rl to show that SurasatiDevi had Cl Z taken the possessionqua the Iand It has beenadmitted that the suit Oled by 00 the plaintiffshad been dismissedon 1611978 after the assurance givenby W7 the defendantsthat theywill not interfere in the Iand of plaintiHsin that suit A Z dlsmissal of the suit does not come in any way for registeringthe criminal complaintagainstthe petitionersThe abovenentionedIand stood relieved vide order dated 7 1983 The petitionershave not disclosed the name of other persons who claimed to be jolntowners with the petitionersThe very fact that Surasati Devi had put her signaturein punjabiwhile executingthe allegedsale deed in Rajasthangoes to prove that the petitionerhad impersonated some other Iadywith an ulterior motive to grabthe Iand of respondentGanesha Slngh Surasati Devi was allotted 16 Bighas7 Biswas of Iand in KhasraNo734 out of this 13 Bighas2 Biswas was acquiredand she has received a 0 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.02 15: 52 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 443 Y J CriminalMiscVo13367 of 2004 6 4 Thus after calculating she was havingonly3 Bighas5 Biswas of Iandin her name The allegedsaledeeddated20021963 is forgedas Surasati Devi afteracceptingthe compensation could not make the sale of more than 3 Bighas and 5 Biswas of Iand As regardsthe Iitigationof JaspalSinghwith the VVakfBoardhas been decided bythe Court of ShriDR Arora UlDJl Presiding Officer PunjabWakf Board Tribunal Bathindathat JaspalSinghhas purchased Ct the propertyfrom SimarjitKaur whereasParkashKaur admits that she is having the properlyfrom Wakf Board The disputein questionof fact can be decided by 0 0 adducing evidence and it can be taken up before the in the trial I 9 Court In the replyfiled by the Assistant Superintendent of Police yl Z Bathinda it has been stated that the FIR has been registered on the orders of IearnedChief Judicial MagistrateBathindapassedon 1782002 The Station L House Officer Kotwali Bathinda under Section 15631CrPC to registerthe I case on the basisof the complaintand Duringthe it Z has been established that the addressesof Saraswati Devi as givenin the sale OQ deed have been found to be fictitious as no person with the said name resided 3 there and that she did not own any propertyat Shri The allegation Z in the FIR that some ladyhad impersonated as SaraswatiDevi who had signed r the sale deed in punjabiwhile the RapatRoznamcha No215 Patwari patti Mehna Bathindadated 283 8issignedin Hindi The pleataken that Saraswati Devi owned property1e Ahata Nol0 12 Purani Abadi Sri GangaNagar This propertywas clubbed with the propertyof Mehna Patti of Bathinda in the sale deed has been found to be false as per the investigationThe propertyat Sri GangaNagarbelongsto RajasthanGovernment The sale deed was executed on 20 1963 whereas the mutation was entered at Serial No5430 on 1232001 After submissionof challan the above disputedquestionof fact can be gone into Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.02 15: 52 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 444 1 r 0 Criminal MiscVoa Mv 43367 of 2004 4 bythe trial Court The facts of the presentcase did not meet the parametersset out for quashingof FIR in State ofHar and others Cha BhajanLal andothers 1991611 RCR 383and SeKhushboo Vv Kanniammal s Another 2010 21RCR Criminall793 The FIR cannot be quashedon the grounds taken bythe petitioners The criminal miscellaneouspetitions are dismissed 1 1 0 12011 RITU BAHRII 0 Vijay Asijal JUDGE I I Z tr Z CO Y Z t1 4 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.02 15: 52 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document