Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 Date of decision:04.09.2009 Madan Mohan ....Petitioner versus Surjit Singh and others .....Respondents Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Madan Mohan has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C) for quashing of judgment dated 10.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula thereby allowing revision petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 against summoning order dated 06.01.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula whereby respondent Nos.1 to 3 were summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner. Petitioner's case is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Field Kanungo and Patwari respectively prepared demarcation report at the instance of Harnam Singh accused since deceased and his son- in-law Surjit Singh respondent No.1 Halqa Patwari and on the basis of said demarcation report, Harnam Singh filed civil suit for possession of land allegedly encroached upon by the petitioner. The Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 -2- case of the petitioner is that the said demarcation report has been forged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in conspiracy with respondent No.1 and Harnam Singh. Learned Trial Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence ordered summoning of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Harnam Singh for various offences mentioned above vide order (Annexure P-1). However, revision petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide impugned judgment dated 10.07.2009 (Annexure P- 2) and consequently summoning order (Annexure P-1) has been set aside and criminal complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be prosecuted without requisite sanction of appointing authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. However, said sanction is not required for prosecuting respondent Nos.1 to 3 because they are not public servants who are not removable from their office save by or with the sanction of the Government. On merits, however, the petitioner has not made out a case for prosecuting respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that in civil suit filed by Harnam Singh, the aforesaid demarcation has been disbelieved. However, merely on this basis, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.1 to 3 committed any offence. The demarcation report was disbelieved by Civil Court because demarcation was not Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 -3- made in accordance with the Rules laid down by the Financial Commissioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not fix three pacca points for making the demarcation as required by the Rules. Consequently, the said demarcation report was not accepted by the Civil Court. However, it does not mean that the demarcation report was forged or the respondents committed any offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that date of demarcation has been changed in the demarcation report from 07.03.2003 to 08.03.2003 by overwriting. However, merely on this basis, respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be held to be liable for any offence because mere change of date of demarcation report would not show that this was done with any dishonest intention. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 changed the date by overwriting the figure '8' over figure '7' in the date. However, they could have originally written the date '8' if they so wanted or they could also have prepared a separate report by writing the date correctly. It is very often that date of previous day is written on documents inadvertently and the same is corrected when the mistake comes to notice. Mere changing the date from 07.03.2003 to 08.03.2003 would not show that respondent Nos.1 to 3 committed the offence of forgery. The document was prepared by respondent Nos.2 and 3 under their signatures and therefore, the document does not come within the purview of 'forged document'. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. 04.09.2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A.Kaundal JUDGE Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 -4-