CRM NO.M-36346 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB OF HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM NO.M-36346 OF 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 20.12.2011 Kewal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present : Mr. R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1-State. None for respondent No.2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.40 of 22.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC as also the summoning order dated 25.04.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh qua the petitioner along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been wrongly impleaded as accused No.1 in the Criminal Complaint No.40 of 22.09.2007. The allegations in the criminal complaint against the petitioner is that Narain Singh before his death gave the entire land falling to his share to his nieces Bachno, Bhajno and Bhuri daughters of Dittu Singh, who was brother of Narain Singh vide registered Will bearing vasika No.506 of 09.03.1968. After the death of Narain Singh, the mutation of his inheritance bearing No.4134 was sanctioned in CRM NO.M-36346 OF 2009 -2- favour of Bachno, Bhajno and Bhuri. Thereafter, Dittu Singh father of Bachno, Bhajno and Bhuri expired on 21.07.1979 leaving behind his widow Basso, daughters Bachno, Bhajno and Bhuri as his legal heirs and the mutation No.4135 of inheritance of Dittu Singh was sanctioned in favour of Basso, Bachno, Bhajno and Bhuri as his legal heirs but accused No.1-Kewal Singh i.e. petitioner in connivance with Bhajan Kaur and officials of Revenue Department got sanctioned mutation of inheritance of Dittu Singh in his favour by alleging that Bachno has expired whereas Bachno was alive. It is further alleged that Kewal Singh, accused No.1, in connivance with Lambardar Mitthu Singh did not allow the name of the complainant to be mentioned in the pedigree-table at the time of mutation nor the legal heirs of Bachno were mentioned in the pedigree-table. It is on this basis that the present complaint is filed against the petitioner. He contends that on the date of the alleged sanction of mutation in favour of the petitioner i.e. 24.10.1979, the petitioner was aged less than seven years. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the school leaving certificate (Annexure P-3), where the date of birth of the petitioner is 14.09.1973. His further submission is that Naseeb Kaur-complainant preferred a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner of the land and during trial, Naseeb Kaur while appearing as PW-1, has admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of death of Dittu Singh, grandfather of the complainant, Kewal Singh was aged 1½ years and at the time when Bachno had died he was only about 1 year and 6-7 months (Annexure P-5). On the basis of this admission made in the cross-examination by the complainant, he contends that the allegations made against the petitioner cannot be sustained and would be covered by the exception as provided under CRM NO.M-36346 OF 2009 -3- Section 82 IPC. Accordingly, he prays that the summoning order also cannot sustain. Notice of this petition was issued to respondent No.2, who was duly served and was represented by her counsel Sh. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate, who had put in appearance on 19.02.2010. Despite various opportunities granted, no reply has been filed by respondent No.2. On last three occasions, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. Today, also none has appeared for respondent No.2 despite this being the second call. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case. In the light of the unrebutted documents produced by the petitioner which show that the petitioner was less than seven years of age when the alleged offence had taken place i.e. 24.10.1979, the present petition deserves to be allowed. School leaving certificate dated 07.08.2006 issued by the Government Primary School, Sardulewala (Mansa), Annexure P-3, shows his date of birth to be 14.09.1973. The statement made by the complainant-Naseeb Kaur herself in the civil suit preferred by her, where in her cross-examination she admitted that at the time of death of Dittu Singh on 21.07.1979, Kewal Singh-petitioner was aged 1½ years. Both these documents leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner on 24.10.1979 when the mutation was got sanctioned in his favour by the petitioner as alleged in the complaint, he was less than seven years of age. If that be so, as per Section 82 IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Even if the allegations as made in the complaint are treated to be correct, the continuation of the present proceedings against the petitioner would thus, be an abuse of process of law and is not permissible in law and therefore, CRM NO.M-36346 OF 2009 -4- deserves to be quashed. In view of the above, present petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint No.40 of 22.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC as also the summoning order dated 25.04.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh qua the petitioner are hereby quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 20.12.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE