Crl. Misc. No.M-41938 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-41938 of 2007 Date of Decision: 29.03.2011 Ram Parshad & others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Rajvir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.28 dated 10.04.2001 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sohana, order dated 30.05.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, vide which, charges under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC have been framed against the petitioners and order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide which, revision petition stands dismissed. As per the allegation in the complaint that on 09.09.1970, Vasu Dev executed a gift deed in favour of Ram Parshad and mutation no.9055 was entered in his name. Ram Parshad further executed sale deed to the extent of 2/3rd share in favour of his brothers, namely, Piare Lal and Babu Ram. The sale deed in favour of Piare Lal and Babu Ram was Crl. Misc. No.M-41938 of 2007 2 challenged by Ram Parshad through his son Jaspal Singh by filing pre- emption suit on 25.02.1971, which was decreed in favour of Jaspal Singh on 20.10.1971. The mutation was entered in the name of Varinder Pal Singh s/o Ram Parshad, whereas, no decree was passed in favour of Varinder Pal Singh. The mutation dated 28.06.1974 has been wrongly entered in the name of Varinder Pal Singh instead of Jaspal Singh, both sons of Ram Parshad. Thereafter, as per orders of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, a case was registered against the petitioners.Thus, the main allegation is that the pre-emption suit decree was passed in favour of Jaspal Singh against Babu Ram and Piare Lal on 20.10.1971. While implementing the decree, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Varinder Pal Singh, who is the brother of Jaspal Singh. Meaning thereby, the decree was sanctioned in the name of one brother Jaspal Singh and mutation was sanctioned in the name of other brother Varinder Pal Singh. While challenging the order dated 30.05.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, vide which, charges under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC have been framed against the petitioners and order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide which, revision petition stands dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant Satinder Kumar has filed a frivolous complaint in respect of a mutation with which he has no concern. It is submitted that Vasudev Ram had three sons Ram Parshad, Piare Lal and Babu Ram. The complainant Satinder Kumar is the son of Harphool Kishan, who is the son of Piare Lal son of Vasudev Ram. Vasudev Ram had executed a gift deed on 09.09.1970 in favour of his son Ram Parshad. On the basis of the said gift deed, mutation No.9055 was entered in the name of Ram Parshad. Said Ram Parshad executed a deed to the extent of 2/3rd share in favour of his brothers Piare Lal and Babu Crl. Misc. No.M-41938 of 2007 3 Ram. The said sale deed in favour of Piare Lal and Babu Ram was assailed by Jaspal Singh son of Ram Parshad by way of pre-emption suit No.78 dated 25.02.1971. The suit was decreed in favour of Jaspal Singh son of Ram Parshad on 20.10.1971. Mutation no.9213 dated 14.11.1972 was entered in the name of Varinder Pal Singh son of Ram Parshad who is the brother of the plaintiff Jaspal Singh. Thereafter, mutation No.9437 was got entered in the name of Varinder Pal Singh in the year 1974 and was sanctioned on 28.06.1974. The case of the complainant is that the decree dated 20.10.1971 was in favour of Jaspal Singh, however, mutation has been sanctioned in favour of Varinder Pal Singh. This, according to the complainant, amounts to forgery. It was further contended that the said arrangement is an inter se family arrangement and the said Jaspal Singh is not aggrieved with the mutation having been sanctioned in favour of Varinder Pal Singh i.e his brother. As such, no offence is made out. Reply by way of an affidavit of Swarandeep Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-II, SAS Nagar (Mohali) has been filed, stating therein that during investigation, it was found that petitioners/accused in connivance with each other fabricated/forged the decree in the name of Varinder Pal Singh son of Ram Parshad and on the basis of forged decree, forged mutation was sanctioned in favour of Varinder Pal Singh-accused. Accordingly, Swarandeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-II, SAS Nagar (Mohali) was directed to file an additional affidavit giving details of the evidence, on the basis of which, the above mentioned averment has been made and the conclusion arrived at. The said affidavit was filed. As per the said affidavit, during the course of investigation, written report from the concerned Court with respect to the decree in favour of Varinder Pal Singh was sought. As per the report received, no such decree titled as Varinder Pal Singh vs. Piare Crl. Misc. No.M-41938 of 2007 4 Lal etc. was passed by the Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, as well as, after perusing the documents on record, the following facts emerge, which are not disputed ; (a) Ram Parshad is father of Jaspal Singh and Varinder Pal Singh. (b) Jaspal Singh and Varinder Pal Singh are the real brothers. (c) The suit was decreed in favour of Jaspal Singh son of Ram Parshad on 20.10.1971. (d) The mutation was entered in the name of Varinder Pal Singh as per the inter se family arrangement amongst the brothers Jaspal Singh and Varinder Pal Singh and their father Ram Parshad. (e) Satinder Kumar-complainant is the grand son of Piare Lal-the brother of Ram Parshad. Piare Lal i.e the grand- father of the complainant had lost the civil suit to Jaspal Singh. (f) The complainant, therefore, has no right on the said land, in dispute. (g) Jaspal Singh has no objection to the mutation in favour of Varinder Pal Singh. (h) The alleged forged decree by the title of Varinder Pal Singh vs. Piare Lal etc. does not exist and accordingly, the same has not been placed on file nor the photocopy of the same is produced anywhere till date. (i) The decree titled as Jaspal Singh vs. Piara Lal etc. passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Kharar, vide order dated 20.10.1971 is admitted. The said decree had become Crl. Misc. No.M-41938 of 2007 5 final is also admitted. In view of the above facts, it is apparent that the allegation that the decree is forged, has no basis. Just because the Investigating Officer chose to seek a report from the concerned Court qua the case titled as Varinder Pal Singh vs. Piara Lal etc. instead of Jaspal Singh vs. Piara Lal etc. and was, accordingly, informed that no such decree exists, does not mean that the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Varinder Pal Singh on the basis of the said imaginary decree. It is an admitted position that the decree titled as Jaspal Singh vs. Piara Lal etc. passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Kharar vide order dated 20.10.1971 has become final. Jaspal Singh, in whose name, the decree was passed has no objection, if the mutation is entered in favour of his brother Varinder Pal Singh. The Investigating Officer has referred to an imaginary decree, which does not exist. Thus, the question of its fabrication does not arise. Moreover, the entry in the name of Varinder Pal Singh instead of Jaspal Singh has not caused any prejudice to the complainant. At the most, Jaspal Singh can have a grouse against the wrong entry in favour of his real brother of Varinder Pal Singh. Jaspal Singh has not raised any objection. Therefore, the question is, as to whether, in a situation of this nature, any offence of cheating can be said to have been made out. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines cheating to mean : “Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat.” Crl. Misc. No.M-41938 of 2007 6 As discussed above in the present case, there is no allegation of anybody having been cheated. No loss is caused to anyone. If at all, the aggrieved party is the real brother of Varinder Pal Singh i.e Jaspal Singh. Jaspal Singh has no objection. Since, no alleged forged decree exists, the remaining offences are also not made out. The report of the Court that no such decree titled as Varinder Pal Singh vs. Piara Lal etc. exists was on account of a wrong information sought by the Investigating Officer. The actual decree was Jaspal Singh vs. Piara Lal etc. and not Varinder Pal Singh vs. Piara Lal etc. No loss has been caused even to the complainant-Satinder Kumar. The only reason why he seems to had filed the complaint is because his grand-father had lost the case to the present petitioners and having lost before all Courts, he has found a novel way to harass the petitioners who are his collateral. The petitioner is in police. Thus, the influence behind the registration of FIR is apparent. In view of the above, beside the fact that no offence is made out, the said complaint is also misconceived and a misuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.28 dated 10.04.2001 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sohana, order dated 30.05.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, vide which, charges under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC have been framed against the petitioners and order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide which, revision petition stands dismissed, are, hereby, quashed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 29.03.2011 JUDGE gurpreet