Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs Mohan Singh And Ors on 11 March, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966
CRR-1375-2009 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-1375-2009
Date of Decision:- 11.03.2025
HARJINDER SINGH
......Petitioner
VERSUS
MOHAN SINGH & OTHERS
......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Amicus Curiae
for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Addl. AG, Haryana
for respondent No.3.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.02.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the judgment of conviction dated 13/15.11.2007 passed by the SDJM, Pehowa has been set aside.
2. The present case has been registered on the basis of complaint Ex.PW7/A, which reads as under:-
"A. That an FIR No.328 dated 18.12.2000 under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A, of Indian Penal Code, had registered on the statement of complainant against the accused Mangal Singh, who was driving truck bearing number of Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, for rashly and negligently at the time of accident, and due to this accident, Kabal Singh son of 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:37 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966 CRR-1375-2009 #2# Harjinder Singh and Love Preet Singh son of Palwinder Singh died at the spot and Shamsher Singh got injuries in this accident and this information was given by Kashmir Singh son of Virsha Singh, resident of Pannu Farm Kherishishgaran, to the complainant. The police investigated the above said case and impounded the truck No. PB-OBE/8513 in this case.
B. On 23.12.2000 accused No.1 Mohan Singh fraudulently and dishonestly introducing himself as Mohinder Singh, filed application for superdari and accused No.1 also filed a false affidavit in the name of Mohinder Singh in the Court on 25.12.2000 and the Court believing the application and affidavit to be true released the truck bearing No. PB-08E/8513 to accused Mohan Singh, on superdari. When the Court summoned superdar as prosecution witness in case in titled State Versus Mangal Singh, report of summon was received that Mohinder Singh has expired since long and then son of superdar Major Singh and Ramji Lal surety in superdaginama were summoned by the court. When Ramji Lal came in Court, he stated that he was surety of Mohan Singh not Mohinder Singh. He is illiterate. He did not know that Mohan Singh impersonated in the Court as Mohinder Singh. He had in fact, came to the Court to stand surety for Mangal Singh. Major Singh also stated that his father Mohinder Singh had expired on 21.10.98 i.e. prior to superdari. He also stated that he has sold out the truck to Shri NK Aggarwal after the death of his father and when the court summoned NK. Aggarwal, he also stated that he had sold the truck to Mohan Singh accused No.1. From the statements of above said persons, it has become clear that it was accused No.1, who cheated by personation the Court and complainant fraudulently and dishonestly as Mohinder Singh C. When these facts, came in the knowledge of the Court, it issued summons of accused No.1 Mohan Singh but when he not appeared in the Court then warrant of arrest was issued by the court. Then accused No.1 got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh, and same was allowed. According to this order, accused No.1 Mohan Singh, submitted his surety bonds to the satisfaction of the court. D. On 04.02.2002, accused No.1 submitted his surety bond of Des 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966 CRR-1375-2009 #3# Raj son of Harbans Lal and Anil Kumar son of Prem Nath, both residents of village Maqsoodhan (Jalandhar) but both the surety personated by accused No.3 & 4 and both are identified by accused No.5 wrongly, knowingly, intentionally and assisted the accused No.1, 3 and 4 who cheated the Court and complainant by personation. Accused No.3 & 4 also prepared forged documents for the purpose of cheating and used as genuine these forged documents. The accused No. 3 & 4 also filed false affidavits in the court dishonestly regarding property for the purpose of being used in judicial proceedings as proof. The Court canceled the superdaginama of Mohan Singh when the abovesaid facts came in the knowledge of the court and SHO PS Pehowa was directed to take the truck in his custody.
E. On 04.02.2002, the accused No.2-Jaswinder Kaur wife of Mohan Singh, resident of Kahan Pur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar (Punjab) at present Maharastra-Andhra Transport Opp. Ashirwad Petrol Pump Bhopal again filed an application for releasing the above said truck No.PB-08E/8513 on superdari and the court demanded superdaginama of Rs. 10 lacs with two sureties and Jaswinder Kaur applicant gave two in superdaginama in which one surety's name is Des Raj son of Harbans Lal, resident of Jalandhar, Maqsoodan stood surety of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and abovesaid truck was released on supedari in the name of Jaswinder Kaur.
F. When these facts came to know by Darshan Singh son of Shri Labh Singh, resident of B-LX733/18/2 New Santokh Pura Jalandhar City (Punjab), he filed an application before the Tehsildar Jalandhar-11, and then this fact came in the knowledge of the complainant that Des Raj son of Harbans Lal has no property, the details of which has been given in the superdagunama and there is no person in the name of Des Raj son of Harbans Lal in the given address, actually Ashok Kumar Baseen son of Shri Kishan Lal Baseen, resident of New Islam Ganj Jalandhar gave surety on the superdaginama in the name of Des Raj by way of personation and again cheated the court by personation.
G. After getting this report from Tehsildar, it is clear that 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966 CRR-1375-2009 #4# Jaswinder Kaur applicant cheated the Court by way of giving false surety in the superdaginama of the abovesaid truck and cheated the Court by way of giving false surety in the superdaginama of the abovesaid truck and cheated the court with the help of accused No.3 & 4 personating the forged documents. It has also come in the knowledge of the complainant that Mohan Singh and Jaswinder Kaur are already declared proclaimed offender by the court of Shri K.K. Kreer, ACJM, Jalandhar on 14.03.2003 in case titled State versus Gurjeet Singh, FIR No. 205 dated 28.04.2000."
3. This complaint was directed to be sent to SHO PS Pehowa for investigation and registration of case under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, vide order dated 02.12.2003. Resultantly, after due investigation, the present case was registered against the accused. The matter was duly investigated. The statements of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. On completion of investigation proceedings, the accused were challaned.
4. Despite efforts the whereabouts of the accused Piara Singh could not be known as no person of this name was available at the given address.
5. After taking cognizance, the accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 209, 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 and 120 of Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 04.10.2004 whereas accused Mohan Singh and Jaswinder Kaur were charge-sheeted under Sections 193, 209,419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 06.01.2006, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1-Badlu Ram, SI, PW4-Ramchander SI, PW5-Mangal Singh, PW6-Maya Chand, ASI PW7-Harjinder Singh, PW8-Shri Nand Kishore Aggarwal, PW9-Smt. Daljit Kaur, PW10-Rajiv Harit, PW11-Niranjan 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966 CRR-1375-2009 #5# Singh, SI, PW12-Gurmit Singh, PW13-Shri Gurdeep Singh, PW14-Darshan Singh, PW15-Ramjit Lal, PWs Kuldeep Singh, SI Pawan Kumar and Gurpal were given up by the APP for State. PW1-Shri Charanjit Singh and Ramji Lal. Besides this, the prosecution also relied upon documents Ex.PW2/A affidavit of Ramji Lal, Ex. PW3/A & Ex. PW12/A application and report, Ex. PW3/B & Ex. PW9A application and report, Ex. PW3/C seizure memo Ex.PW3/D copy of FIR, Ex.PW5/A A Statement of Mangal Singh, Ex.PW7/A complaint Ex.PW3/E endorsement, Ex.PW8/B statement of Nandkishore, Ex.PW10/A statement of Mangal Singh, Ex.PW10/B copy of application for superdari, Ex.PW10/C superdaginama, Ex.PW1/A surety bond, Ex.PW10/D affidavit of Mohinder Singh Ex.PW10E copy of order dated 01.05.2001, Ex.PW10/6 copy of order dated 30.05.01. Ex.PW10/G statement of Ramji Lal, Ex.PW10/H, copy of statement of Major Singh, Ex.PW19/J copy of order dated 11.07.01 Ex. PW10/K copy of order dated 11.06.01, Ex.PW10/L copy of order dated 04.12.2001, Ex. PW10/M copy of order dated 12.12.2001, Ex.PW10/N copy of application for bail, Ex.PW10/0 copy of affidavit of Mohan Singh, Ex. PW10/P copy of surety bond with affidavit, Ex.PW10/Q copy of surety bond with affidavit, Ex.PW10/R copy of application dated 04.2.2002 for superdari, Ex. PW10/S copy of application dated 21.02.2002, Ex.PW10/T copy of superdaginama, Ex. PW10/U copy of affidavit of Piara Singh, Ex.PW10/V Jamabandi, Ex.PW10/X Jamabandi, Ex.PW10/Z again jamabandi. Ex. PW10/ZZ application for making the valuation report, Ex.PW10/ZZZ application for making the valuation report.
7. On being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence.
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966
CRR-1375-2009 #6#
However, no evidence in defence was led by the accused on record.
8. Based on the evidence led, the accused/respondent Nos.1 & 2 came to be convicted and sentenced by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa vide judgment and order of sentence dated 13/15.11.2007 as under:-
Offence under Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default Section of payment of fine 193 IPC SI for 02 years Rs.500/- each --
209 IPC SI for 01 year Rs.500/- each --
419 IPC SI for 01 year Rs.500/- each --
420 IPC SI for 02 years Rs.500/- each --
465 IPC SI for 01 year Rs.500/-each --
467 IPC SI for 03 years Rs.1000/- each --
468 IPC SI for 02 years Rs.1000/- each --
471 IPC SI for 03 years Rs.1000/- each --
120-B SI for 02 months Rs.500/- each --
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
9. The convicted accused preferred an appeal before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The said Court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 21.02.2009 on the premise that there was non- compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C inasmuch as only the Court concerned could have filed a complaint and the FIR could not have been registered.
10. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner.
11. The counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that the primary reason for the acquittal of the accused is that there was non- compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as only a complaint was maintainable at the instance of the Court before whom the offences in question had been committed. However, this reasoning adopted by the Lower Appellate Court was fallacious as the documents in question such as surety bonds, jamabandis and affidavit etc. had been forged outside the 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966 CRR-1375-2009 #7# Court and produced in the Court and therefore, the bar contained under Section 195 Cr.P.C. from taking cognizance would not be attracted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another Versus Meenakshi Marwah & another, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178.
12. On the other hand, the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that there is no evidence of forgery of any document and as such, the present revision petition was liable to be dismissed.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to refer to the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the same reads as under:-
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-(1) No Court shall take cognizance--
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966 CRR-1375-2009 #8# punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-
clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.] (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:
Provided that--
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966 CRR-1375-2009 #9#
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed."
15. While interpreting the scope of the aforementioned provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) held as under:-
"25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)
(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
26. In the present case, the will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody's case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)
(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. A perusal of the aforementioned judgment would establish beyond doubt that a distinction has been drawn between forgery of documents committed while they are in custody of the Court i.e. custodia legis and forgery of documents outside the Court which they are produced in Court in evidence. In the former case, proceedings under Section 195 Cr.P.C. are to be resorted to inasmuch as the complaint is to be filed by the 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966 CRR-1375-2009 #10# Court where the forgery has been committed. However, in the latter case, where the forgery of documents has taken place outside the Court but the documents thereafter produced in the Court, an FIR/complaint at the instance of a private individual is maintainable.
17. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find considerable merit in the present petition. The judgment dated 21.02.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra acquitting the accused is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Lower Appellate Court for a fresh adjudication on merits keeping in view the aforementioned discussion.
18. The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
11.03.2025
Jitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::