Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 2 May, 2011
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Misc. No.105 MA of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.105 MA of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision 02.5.2011.
Sukhdev Singh
...... Petitioner.
versus
The State of Haryana and others
...... Respondents.
Present : Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
K.C.PURI, J.
Sukhdev Singh petitioner has preferred this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 9.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide which the appeal preferred by the accused- appellants against the judgment dated 14.12.2009 and order dated 15.12.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, was allowed and the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted.
The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that 16 kanals 6 marlas being 1/6th share of land measuring 97 kanals 18 marlas entered at Khewat No.130, Khatoni No.243 to 248 kittas 18 situated within the revenue estate of village Bhuna Tehsil Guhla District Kaithal was the Criminal Misc. No.105 MA of 2011 2 ancestral property of the complainant and the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the hands of accused No.1 being karta of the family, in which the complainant has his right being co-parceners from his birth. Accused No.1 had executed a Will dated 20.8.1999 regarding his entire moveable and immoveable properties, including his share in the above mentioned ancestral/ coparcenary/ Joint Hindu Family Property in favour of the complainant and the accused Nos.2 and 3 in equal shares being his real sons and the same was got registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Gulha at deed No.83 dated 20.8.1999. Accused Nos.1 to 3 after conspiring with accused Nos.4 and 5 with intent to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, executed a release deed dated 16.9.2002 of the entire total land in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 only, in equal share thereby, depriving the complainant from his rights as coparcener in the said Joint Hindu Family Property/coparcenary property. The complainant was already in possession as per his share over the said land and he only came to know the said fraudulent and illegal act of the accused on 16.9.2002, the day when the same was got executed, attested and registered and when the accused No.1 to 3 tried to oust and dispossessed the complainant, illegally and forcibly from the said land of his share. The complainant visited the police of police station Siwan time and again since17.9.2002 to take action against the accused but the police of police station Siwan, lingered on the matter on one pretext or the others and finally refused to take any action against the accused on 24.8.2003.
After recording of preliminary evidence, the trial Court summoned the accused to stand trial under Sections 418, 420, 423, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 19.8.2005. Criminal Misc. No.105 MA of 2011 3
In order to prove its case, complainant at pre-charge stage examined CW-1 Ramesh Chand, CW-2 Gopi Chand Deed-Writer, CW-3 Sham Lal deed-Writer, CW-4, Rai Singh Advocate and CW-5 Sukhdev Singh and the complainant closed his pre-charge evidence on 2.7.2009.
Therefore, finding a prima facie case under Sections 418, 420, 423, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused were charge sheeted. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The accused further cross-examined the witnesses after framing of charge.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. They denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed their innocence. The accused examined Chhaju Ram as DW-1 and Angrej Singh as DW-2.
The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid.
Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused preferred the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.
Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner- complainant has preferred the present petition/appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the records of the case file.
Criminal Misc. No.105 MA of 2011 4
Along with the appeal, an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner-complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused/respondents. The Appellate Court has wrongly acquitted them. The properties is Joint Hindu family coparcenary property and the same could not be alienated by the father Jai Karan. The respondents have wrongly narrated Ved Parkash and Aman Kumar as the sons. The complainant Sukhdev Singh is also the son of Jai Karan. So, in these circumstances, the offence under Sections 418, 420, 423, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out against all the respondents. Jai Karan has rightly executed Will in favour of Ved Parkash and complainant in respect of Joint Hindu family coparcenary property. The release deed executed by Jai Karan in favour of Ved Parkash and Aman Kumar is a forged and fabricated document. So, in these circumstances, the Appellate Court has wrongly acquitted the accused/respondents.
The narrow controversy in the present complaint is in respect of release deed dated 16.9.2002 executed by Jai Karan in which he has described that Ved Parkash and Aman Kumar are his sons. The case of the complainant is that Jai Karan has wrongly not described Sukhdev Singh complainant as his son in the said release deed. The said release deed has been voluntarily executed by Jai Karan. Jai Karan can give his property to his two sons ignoring the third son. However, it is a different matter whether the property is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property and that matter has to be decided by the Civil Court. The Appellate Court has Criminal Misc. No.105 MA of 2011 5 rightly held that in the release deed it has not been mentioned by Jai Karan that he has no other son except Ved Parkash and Aman Kumar. So, the learned trial Court has rightly held that no offence under Sections 467 and 420 IPC is made out. It has been rightly observed by the First Appellate Court that complainant has filed the complaint to cut short the civil litigation.
So, in view of the above discussion, no ground for granting leave to appeal is made out. Therefore, application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. stands declined and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI )
JUDGE
May 02, 2011
sv