Crl.Rev.No.1012 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB&HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRL.REV.NO.1012 OF 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION:26.8.2011 Zile Singh and others.................................................................Petitioners versus STATE OF Haryana.......................................................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present:- Mr.Surender Dhull,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh,Assistant Advocate General,Haryana Mr.C.B.Goel,Advocate for respondent No.2 Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of order dated 23.2.2006 whereby charge was ordered to be framed against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court had ordered framing of the charge against the petitioners only on the basis of report of a handwriting expert. There was no other evidence on record to make out a case for proceeding against the petitioners. Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that in the civil proceedings, the Will set up by the petitioners was disbelieved and the Will in question was a forged document. The petitioners had lost up to the Apex Court in the civil litigation. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant-Kuldip Crl.Rev.No.1012 of 2006 (O&M) 2 Singh had one sister, namely, Bhulli Devi. Sunheri Devi, Hukam Singh and Ajmer Singh were children of Bhulli Devi. Sunheri Devi and Ajmer Singh had died. After the death of Darab Singh in the year 1972, mutation qua land of Darab Singh was sanctioned in favour of Hukam Singh, Ajmer Singh and Sunheri Devi. The mutation was challenged by Zila Singh, Dal Singh basing reliance on Will executed in their favour by Darab Singh. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of Zila Singh and Dal Singh on the basis of the Will. The said order was upheld upto the Court of the Financial Commissioner. Thereafter, the complainant filed a civil suit and in the said proceedings, the thumb impression of Darab Singh on the Will was got compared from a finger print expert with thumb impression of Darab Singh available in the record of consolidation proceedings. As per the report of the expert,the thumb impression on the Will did not match with the thumb impression of Darab Singh on the revenue record. The Will in question was a forged and fabricated document. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, the civil suit filed by the complainant was decreed for possession vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2000. Appeal preferred by Zila Singh and others was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.2000. Regular Second Appeal No. 3657 of 2002 preferred by Zila Singh and others was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2008. Admittedly, the Apex court has upheld the said judgment passed by this Court. While dismissing the RSA, this Court held as under:- “On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court came to the Crl.Rev.No.1012 of 2006 (O&M) 3 conclusion that the plaintiffs have established their relationship with deceased Darab Singh. Even the defendants also admitted in their cross-examination the relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased Darab Singh. The defendants during the course of evidence, relied upon a will dated 6.12.1971, Ex.D1. The handwriting expert compared the signatures of Darab Singh on the Consolidation Scheme of the area prepared somewhere 40 years back and opined that the signatures on the will do not tally with the signatures of Darab Singh, on the consolidation scheme. Though the defendants produced the marginal witnesses to the will, however, on the basis of the evidence of the expert witness, the trial court returned a finding that the defendants have failed to establish due execution of the will and the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed for possession vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2000. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present appellants alone preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kaithal. The lower appellate court vide its detailed judgment and decree dated 4.8.2000 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken me to the evidence relied upon by the courts below. His contention is that both the courts have wrongly relied upon the consolidation scheme to compare the signatures of Darab Singh with the signatures of Darab Singh with the signatures on the will. According to the learned counsel, it has not been established with Crl.Rev.No.1012 of 2006 (O&M) 4 certainty that the signatures on the consolidation scheme were of Darab Singh. However, both the courts have categorically held that Darab Singh was resident of village Kasor and there is no other person with name of Darab Singh in the said village and he being the landlord put his signatures on the consolidation scheme. It is not in dispute that Darab Singh was a big landlord and he was definitely interested in preparation of the consolidation scheme. There is evidence on record that except this Darab Singh, there was no other person with the same name in the said village. Apart from that the defendants have not led any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs. It is settled proposition of law that even if two views are possible from the appreciation of evidence and the view taken by the courts below is one of the possible view, no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.” Thus, the petitioners had set up the Will dated 6.12.1971 in their favour alleged to have been executed by Darab Singh. However, as per the expert's opinion, the thumb impression of Darab Singh did not tally with his thumb impression in the consolidation record. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are not liable to be quashed. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Sabina ) Judge August 26,2011 arya Crl.Rev.No.1012 of 2006 (O&M) 5