Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh vs State Of Punjab & Another on 19 November, 2008
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-23390 of 2004
Date of Decision: November 19, 2008
Baljeet Singh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. T.S. Sangha, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, Assistant
Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
Challenge in this petition is to Order dated 2.2.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, and order dated 26.2.2004 passed by the Revisional Court.
The petitioner herein is the complainant and is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below whereby respondent No.2, Mukhtiar Singh, Sub Registrar (Naib Tehsildar), Garhshankar, has not been summoned to stand trial alongwith others in complaint case titled 'Baljit Singh Vs. Jaswinder Kaur & Others'.
Crl. Misc. No. M-23390 of 2004 [2]
It is brought out that Harpal Singh, brother of the petitioner, sold land vide sale deed executed on 12.12.2000 in favour of Trimbak Kumar. Allegation made in the complaint is that at the point in time when Harpal Singh executed sale deed, he was not in a sound state of mind and therefore, was not capable of executing the sale deed. It is alleged that sale deed was got executed by dubious means. The time reflected on the sale deed was changed by respondent No.2, Mukhtiar Singh, from 4.40 P.M. to 1.40 P.M. This forgery was committed because during the post lunch period, it was declared a holiday.
Mother of the petitioner filed an application before the Sub Registrar, for the reasons given therein that the mutation be not sanctioned. Allegation is that application and Vakalatnama were taken by the respondent and an assurance was given to the mother of the petitioner that the matter would be referred to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for adjudication. The documents, however, were removed from the original file. Again forgery was committed so as to change the number of pages and number of documents on the file and mutation was sanctioned.
Learned counsel contends that in preliminary evidence, statement of Bhupinder Singh, Clerk, Office of Sub Registrar, who appeared as PW-1, makes it evident that the time on the sale deed indeed was changed. The relevant portion of the statement has been reproduced in Para 2 of the Crl. Misc. No. M-23390 of 2004 [3] petition.
Likewise Jagdish Kumar, Ahlmad in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhshankar, appeared as PW-3 and has given the details of the change in number of pages in the file that was to be forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Relevant portion of the statement has been reproduced in Para 3 of the petition.
The petitioner appeared as PW-6 and has again levelled specific allegation against respondent No.2 in regard to the facts given above. In view of the above, it has been contended that there is sufficient credible material on the record so as to summon respondent No.2.
I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Magistrate and have heard the learned counsel. I find that although in detail the facts have been referred to in the impugned order, however, the issue has not been considered in the concluding portion. Only the issue in regard to removal of application of the mother of the petitioner has been considered and that too without dealing with the relevant material i.e. statement of Jagdish Kumar, Ahlmad. In the context of what has been stated by Jagdish Kumar, even the statement of the petitioner who appeared as PW-6, has not been considered while holding that no case is made out against respondent No.2 for summoning.
Likewise on the other issue of Crl. Misc. No. M-23390 of 2004 [4] fabrication of time of registration of sale deed, there is no relevant discussion or consideration in regard to the involvement of respondent No.2. The Magistrate was required to consider the statement of Bhupinder Singh, Clerk, Office of Sub Registrar, who appeared as PW-1, in the context of statement given by the petitioner. The relevant material having not been considered, I find the order to be illegal. Although the petitioner carried a revision, however, even the Revisional Court has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and revision has been dismissed while holding that findings cannot be substituted.
Since the relevant material had not been considered, therefore, question of substituting the findings does not arise. Be that as it may, I find the impugned orders to be illegal and set aside the same. The matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, for consideration of the issue in the light of the evidence led by the petitioner.
The petition is disposed of.
Respondent seeks liberty to argue the matter although he has not yet been summoned.
Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a fair stand that the petitioner would have no objection if the respondent is allowed to join proceedings, either in person or through counsel.
Crl. Misc. No. M-23390 of 2004 [5]
Ordered accordingly.
(AJAI LAMBA)
November 19, 2008 JUDGE
avin