Criminal Revision No. 920 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 920 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 09, 2009 Ashwani Kumar .. Petitioner v. Malkit Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for he petitioner. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The complainant is before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned court below, whereby in revision the order framing charge against the respondent-accused was set aside by the learned court below. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 193, 196, 206, 207, 420,421, 422, 424, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against eight persons including the respondent. Four of the persons were members of a family and one was Lambardar. It was alleged therein that accused No. 1 in the complaint, namely, Ram Singh had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the petitioner on 7.6.2000 and executed a pronote. As he failed to make the repayment, a civil suit was filed on 7.5.2003, which was decreed on 2.9.2004 for recovery of Rs. 2,00,400/-. Kartar Singh was father of Ram Singh. He died on 10.6.2004 without executing any will. He was owner of 1/3rd share of 73 kanals and 19 marlas of land, being karta of joint Hindu family. After his death, Ram Singh became owner of 1/6th share being member of joint Hindu family and besides that, he inherited 1/12th share from the share of Kartar Singh after his death. To frustrate the decree passed in favour of the petitioner, accused- Ram Singh along with other family members fabricated will of Kartar Singh. In terms of the will, the property owned by Kartar Singh was transferred in favour of his widow and other sons. Mutation of inheritance was also got sanctioned in connivance with other accused. The respondent, at that time, was posted as Halqa Patwari of village Bhagi Wander, who played active role in getting the mutation sanctioned on the basis of forged and fabricated will of Kartar Singh. The Criminal Revision No. 920 of 2009 [2] allegations against the respondent in the complaint are that when the petitioner approached the respondent after coming to know about the entry of mutation of inheritance and requested for supply of jamabandi to enable him to file objections against the sanction of mutation, the respondent did not supply copy of the jamabandi immediately. The same was supplied on 6.8.2004, which is shown to have been issued on 23.7.2004. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo in his enquiry held the respondent guilty for supply of jamabandi late and also fabricating the record. The learned Magistrate after summoning the respondent vide order dated 18.7.2008 framed charge against him under Sections 465/471 IPC. Against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the respondent filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which was accepted vide order dated 23.10.2008. It is against this order that the petitioner-complainant is before this Court. Assailing the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the settled position of law with regard to interference in the order framing charge. The evidence on record sought to be led had not been appreciated at that stage, as it is only that prima facie case was to be seen. It is a clear case where the offence alleged against the respondent has been made out. The evidence in the present case is yet to be led. The respondent had not challenged the summoning order, which prima facie establishes his guilt. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint was filed by the petitioner against eight persons. Seven accused, who are legal representatives of deceased-Kartar Singh, were discharged and it is only the respondent-Patwari, who is proceeded with. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent had helped the legal representatives of Kartar Singh in getting the mutation entered and sanctioned on the basis of forged will. However, the fact remains that the will executed by deceased-Kartar Singh was never challenged and all the legal heirs accepted the same as such. The only allegation is that the respondent had prepared copy of jamabandi on 23.7.2004 and delivered the same on 6.8.2004 cannot be said to be an act of forgery. Mere for delay in supply of copy, no motive can be attributed to the respondent. Still further, the respondent has already retired from service and the petitioner was not even applicant for supply of copy of jamabandi. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Under consideration before this Court is the order passed by the learned court below in the revision filed by the respondent against the order framing charge. The undisputed facts in the present case do not detain me in upholding the order. It is Criminal Revision No. 920 of 2009 [3] for the reason that the primary allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent got the mutation of the property owned by deceased-Kartar Singh sanctioned on the basis of a forged will just to deprive the petitioner to get decree passed in his favour, executed against Ram Singh, who otherwise was to inherit his property. The undisputed fact is that the will executed by deceased-Kartar Singh was never challenged by any of the legal representatives or the persons who were not beneficiaries therein. Meaning thereby, it cannot be said that the will was forged on the basis of which mutation was entered in favour of the persons who were to inherit the property. Merely because in some departmental proceedings, minor punishment has been imposed on the respondent, will not be sufficient to proceed against the respondent as, in my opinion, considering the material on record, the same would amount to undue harassment of the respondent. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 09, 2009 mk