In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-16452 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:8.7.2010 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner assails the order dated 5.5.2007 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara and the order dated 15.4.2010 (Annexure-P.7) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala whereby the petitioner during trial of the case has been summoned as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short). The allegations against the petitioner which have come on record on the statement (Annexure-P.5) of Harbhajan Singh (PW-1) are that his maternal uncle, namely, Bhagwan Singh had five children, namely, Joginder Singh, Sarwan Singh, Bachni, Baksho and Chhindo. Joginder Singh had gone to Village Mahla Kothe and was residing there. After his (Joginder Singh's) death the land of his share was to be transferred in the name of his son Sukhchain Singh besides his three daughters. In order to buy the said land, Balwinder Singh and petitioner Mohinder Singh went to Cr. Misc. No.M-16452 of 2010 [2] Sukhchain Singh son of Joginder Singh in order to settle a deal. After the death of Bhagwan Singh his entire land was transferred in the name of his aforesaid children. The daughter of Bhagwan Singh, namely, Bachni who was married had two children, namely, Gurmail Kaur and Nirmal Singh who were residing in Canada. Gurmail Kaur came to India in February 2002. When she visited Sarwan Singh she was informed that there was land in the name of her mother Bachni. The mutation of the land of Bachni was sanctioned and the land was transferred to Mohinder Singh (petitioner) and Balwinder Singh of Village Palahai with the connivance of Sukhchain Singh and the Patwari who got entered the name of her (Bachni's) brothers and sisters. This mutation was attested by Bachan Singh Lambardar of Village Bhullarai. The mutation was got entered by Mohinder Singh (petitioner) who was working as a property dealer with the connivance of Balwinder Singh with the motive to purchase land and death certificate of Bachni was prepared by the said persons in duplicate. The aforesaid persons i.e. Mohinder Singh (petitioner), Balwinder Singh, Sukhchain Singh and the Patwari had wrongly entered the mutation and Balwinder Singh was made a witness on that. The said persons were aware that Bachni was married and her children were abroad. The statement (Annexure-P.5) of Harbhajan Singh (PW-1) was recorded by the DSP Commando. The case of the prosecution is that mutation No.1322 of Village Bhullarai, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala regarding the estate of Smt. Bachni daughter of Bhagwan Singh was sanctioned in favour of her brothers Sarwan Singh and Joginder Singh sons; besides, Baksho and Chhindo daughters of Bhagwan Singh son of Gurdit Singh. The said mutation in fact Cr. Misc. No.M-16452 of 2010 [3] was liable to be sanctioned in favour of Gurmail Kaur and Nirmal Singh. The petitioner as per the deposition (Annexure-P.5) of Harbhajan Singh (PW-1) had got prepared the death certificate of Bachni and also got the mutation sanctioned in the name of the brothers and sisters of Bachni in connivance with Sukhchain Singh, Balwinder Singh and the Patwari. On the basis of the said allegations the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused in pursuance of the order dated 5.5.2007 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara and revision petition against the same has been dismissed vide order dated 15.4.2010 (Annexure-P.7) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has nothing to do with the case and that he was not sent-up for trial by the Police is devoid of merit. The petitioner has not submitted the report filed by the Police in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. wherein the reasons as to why he was not sent-up for trial by the Police may have been recorded. For the failure to produce the same an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. The learned trial Magistrate has observed that Mohinder Singh (petitioner) and Balwinder Singh connived with each to get the mutation of the land of Bachni sanctioned and thereafter purchased the same and committed the offence. The petitioner Mohinder Singh is alleged to have sold the property thereafter. As such, it was clear that the petitioner and Balwinder Singh could be tried along with the other accused. The total and complete effect of the deposition (Annexure-P.5) of Harbhajan Singh (PW- 1) is to be considered by the learned trial Court after evidence is completed and at this stage it would be premature to hold on the basis of the same that Cr. Misc. No.M-16452 of 2010 [4] the allegations as levelled do not make out a case. At least a case for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused is indeed made out. The learned trial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have also found sufficient material to summon the petitioner as an additional accused. Therefore, no ground for interference with the impugned orders in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. As such, the petitioner may urge the contentions as urged herein at the appropriate stage before the learned trial Court itself. However, there is indeed prima facie material to show that he had connived with the brothers of Bachni and got the land of Bachni transferred in their name and then purchased the same. He is also alleged to have got prepared the death certificate of Bachni. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for interference with the impugned orders is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. July 8, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*