Crl. Rev. No. 2349 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No.2349 of 2007 Decided on : 08-07-2009 Malkiat Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Sohan Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate for complainant-respondent no.1 Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab. MAHESH GROVER, J This petition has been directed against the order dated 10.10.2007. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 13.8.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class dismissing the complaint preferred by the present respondent no. 1 and discharged the petitioners who were arrayed as accused therein. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent no.1 had initiated a criminal complaint against the petitioner alleging that he had forged the sale deed and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 426, 468, 471, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199 IPC. It was averred by him that he alongwith other persons namely Durga Dass s/o Harnam Singh, Lal Singh, Durga Singh and Yog Raj are co-sharers in the land out of which Durga Singh has sold some portion of his share to the petitioner. The Crl. Rev. No. 2349 of 2007 2 dispute pertains to only one Khasra no.190 (0-17) which was allegedly sold by Durga Singh to the petitioner comprising 3 marlas of land. The complainant alleged that prior to the filing of the complaint a civil suit had been initiated by the present respondent seeking to injunct the petitioner from interfering in his peaceful possession of land which included the aforesaid Khasra no. and in that suit the present petitioner has set up a sale deed allegedly executed by Durga Singh which included this khasra no. In the complaint it was highlighted that although the sale deed which was produced in Court mentions khasra no. 190 yet in the records of the Sub Registrar pertaining to this sale deed the aforesaid khasra no. does not find mention. According to the complainant-respondent no.1 since the sale deed produced in Court was at variance with the record of the sale deed which was available in the office of the Sub Registrar, the petitioner had committed forgery and therefore liable to be proceeded against. After recording the preliminary evidence the petitioner alongwith acussed Durga Singh were summoned to face the trial. Two other persons namely Balbir Singh and Chanchel Singh were reported to be dead during the pendency of the complaint. Durga Singh also died and it is the petitioner alone who was facing the proceedings pursuant to the complaint. The respondent no.1 who is the complainant got recorded his pre-charge evidence in the shape of CW1 Surjit Kaur and also examined himself as CW2. He broadly deposed on the lines of the complaint. Copy of the sale deed was produced as Ex.D1 while copy of Jamabandi as Ex. D2 and copy of the entry in the register of the scribe of the sale deed as Ex. D3. Learned Trial Court while considering the pre-charge evidence intensively relied on the judgment of the learned Civil Court which Crl. Rev. No. 2349 of 2007 3 proceedings have been initiated by the complainant-respondent himself and concluded that no case for proceeding against the petitioner has been made out and dismissed the complaint and also discharged the petitioner which resulted in filing of the srevision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge who accepted the same and remanded the case back to the Trial Court to re-consider the matter by appraising the pre-charge evidence and deciding the matter afresh. This has resulted in filing of the present revision petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed in question was executed on 8.2.1995 by Durga Singh in his favour and the suit was filed by the respondent no.1 instantly on 13.3.1995. The veracity of the sale deed was tested before Trial Court where Durga Singh appeared and verified to the execution of the sale deed pertaining to Khasra no. 190. The civil suit was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the respondent was also dismissed. After lapse of 6 years the complaint has been filed on 11.1.2000. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed as such was never challenged by the complainant-respondent no.1 and the same was to his knowledge as he has contested the proceedings in the Civil Court all through out. Therefore, the complaint which has been filed after a lapse of 6 years is belated and ought to have been dismissed on this count alone. He has contended that the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court has resulted in grave mis-carriage of justice and the finding that the pre-charge evidence has not been appreciated is erroneous only because the testimony of complainant and one Surjit Kaur had been recorded. Besides only three documents out of Crl. Rev. No. 2349 of 2007 4 which two were already under the scrutiny of the Civil Court and one is entry in the register of the scribe of the sale deed, which per se even if it is accepted could not establish the criminal intent on the part of the petitioner so as to force him to face the proceedings in a criminal complaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has contended that the proceedings in the civil suit are totally independent of the criminal proceedings and since the complainant had come to the know of the forgery after the decision of the suit he initiated the complaint. He placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in case Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Anr. Versus Shaikh Saheblal Marden (dead) through Lrs & Anr. 2007(2) Apex Court Judgements 252 wherein in para 27 it has been observed as follows:- “Para 27 : - Finally, the contention that a civil suit is filed by the complainant and is pending has also not impressed us. If a civil suit is pending, an appropriate order will be passed by the competent Court. That, however, does not mean that if the accused have committed any offence, jurisdiction of criminal court would be ousted. Both the proceedings are separate, independent and one cannot abate or defeat the other.” I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments and also the relevant documents which have been produced alongwith petition. Concededly, the parties were at loggerheads by way of a civil suit in which the complainant-respondent no.1 sought to injunct the petitioner from interfering in his possession. The petitioner in order to Crl. Rev. No. 2349 of 2007 5 defend his rights in a civil suit has set up a plea that the sale deed executed by Durga Singh included the disputed khasra no. 190. The foremost fact that has to be noticed in favour of the petitioner is that Durga Singh himself appeared as witness before the Civil Court and testified to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It has to be noticed that the sale deed which is produced and supported by the vendor Durga Singh reflected this Khasra no.190. At no point of time did the vendor raise this objection that Khasra no. 190 was not part of sale deed and was not intended to be sold and that is why the finding was returned in favour of the petitioner establishing his right in the property in question. A perusal of the entire facts reveal that it is essentially a civil dispute. The complainant had never challenged the sale deed to say it is erroneous. He has only pleaded injunction on the basis of being a co-sharer in the property and in that case the vendor supported the factum of sale deed. The respondent no.1- complainant is an alien to this fact. He thus has no locus to say that the petitioner has committed any criminal offence since the allegations pertain to the tampering of the sale deed which in case was supported by the vendor. Besides, the complainant was in the know of the sale deed all through out ever since its execution on 8.2.1995 which is reflected from the prompt filing of the suit in March, 1995 yet he chose to file the complaint on 11.1.2000 after he lost battle in Civil Court. It is clear from the aforesaid that the complainant is merely trying to abuse the process of law by resorting to criminal process when the dispute essentially was of civil nature and the filing of the complaint eventually as an abuse of the process of law has been done belatedly. The Court of revision was therefore clearly in error by remitting the matter back to the Trial Court which had correctly Crl. Rev. No. 2349 of 2007 6 appreciated the facts. In this view of the matter, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. July 08, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge