IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 29, 2010 1. Criminal Revision No.1593 of 2009 Sardara Singh @ Saudagar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Gurnam Singh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. Criminal Revision No.1594 of 2009 Sardara Singh @ Saudagar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Karamjit Singh & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 3. Criminal Revision No.1595 of 2009 Sardara Singh @ Saudagar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Balbir Kaur & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . Crl. Revision No.1593 of 2009 [2] 4. Criminal Revision No.1596 of 2009 Sardara Singh @ Saudagar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Jagroop Singh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 5. Criminal Revision No.1597 of 2009 Sardara Singh @ Saudagar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Sukhwinder Singh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 6. Criminal Revision No.1592 of 2009 Sardara Singh @ Saudagar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Atam Singh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Garg and Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocates, for the respondent(s). Crl. Revision No.1593 of 2009 [3] . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This shall deal with a bunch of criminal revisions viz. Criminal Revision No.1593 of 2009; Criminal Revision No.1594 of 2009; Criminal Revision No.1595 of 2009; Criminal Revision No.1596 of 2009; Criminal Revision No.1597 of 2009; and Criminal Revision No.1592 of 2009. The petitions involve similar facts and law. For reference to facts, file of Criminal Revision No.1593 of 2009 titled `Sardara Singh @ Saudagar Singh vs. Gurnam Singh’ is being taken up. This petition has been filed in challenge to Order dated 12.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide which order of summoning dated 13.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, as against the accused in criminal complaint (Annexure P-3) has been set aside. Gist of the issues is that an arbitral award was passed on 21.3.2002 on which date, Jagroop Singh and Gurwinder Singh, sons of Balbir Kaur, were minors. As per the arbitral award, the land owned by the said three persons Crl. Revision No.1593 of 2009 [4] namely Balbir Kaur, Jagroop Singh and Gurwinder Singh was to be sold in favour of Sardara Singh @ Saudagar Singh (complainant) and his brothers. Allegation is that rather than selling the entire land in favour of the complainant and his brothers, the said three persons namely Balbir Kaur, Jagroop Singh and Gurwinder Singh, sold the land in favour of accused Nos.9 to 11 namely Karamjit Singh, Shavinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh. Accused were summoned to stand trial for commission of offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120-B IPC. The accused carried six revision petitions. The revision petitions were allowed and order of summoning had been set aside. The reasons assigned for allowing the revision petitions of the accused and setting aside the order of summoning are reflected in Para 6 to 12 of Order dated 12.3.2009 which are as under:- “6. It is admitted case of the complainant that Balbir Kaur and Gurwinder Singh have executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant and his brothers. 7. Jagroop Singh has executed a sale deed dated 19.6.2007 in favour of accused no.9 to 11 and the complaint is regarding this land. 8. At the time of execution of an agreement on the basis of which arbitrators entered into the reference and passed an award, Jagroop Singh was minor and the said agreement was executed on his behalf by his mother. It is also not disputed that Balbir Kaur mother of Jagroop Singh filed an application before the Guardian Judge, Crl. Revision No.1593 of 2009 [5] Faridkot, for permission to execute the sale deed of the share of her minor son Jagroop Singh and daughter Kulwinder Kaur which was allowed. 9. As per award an agreement to sell was to be executed upto 25.3.2002 after receiving Rs.2 lacs as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed upto 31.12.2002 after receiving the remaining sale consideration from the complainant party by Balbir Kaur and her sons. 10. Jagroop Singh did not induce the complainant or his brothers to deliver any property to him or to any other person and as such it can be said that he did not cheat the complainant. 11. Similarly, Balbir Singh or her sons Gurwinder Singh, and Jagroop Singh did not commit any forgery or prepared any false document. 12. The learned trial court has not passed a speaking order which could show as to how any offence punishable u/s 420/ 465/ 467/ 468 and 471 IPC is made out against the accused/ petitioners.” It has not been disputed that Gurwinder Singh and Jagroop Singh were minor at the point in time when arbitral award was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that at the point in time when sale deed was executed, the Sub Registrar had asked the complainant to produce any order of stay in view of pending litigation. There was no order of stay and therefore, the sale deeds were allowed to be registered. There is no allegation of any forgery of any document, therefore, per-se provisions of Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC could not have been invoked. At best, it is violation of an arbitral award and under the Crl. Revision No.1593 of 2009 [6] facts and circumstances of the case, offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC is not made out. In view of the above, I find no illegality or impropriety in impugned order dated 12.3.2009. All the petitions are accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 29, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?