Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jussa vs Shakil And Others on 4 March, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Rev.No.1332 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Rev.No.1332 of 2008
Date of decision: 4.3.2010
Jussa
......Petitioner
Versus
Shakil and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Robin Dutt, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
****
SABINA, J.
The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents under Sections 148/ 149/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). The petitioner led his preliminary evidence and vide order dated 24.5.2005, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jagadhari summoned the respondents to face trial under Sections 149/ 420/ 467/ 468 IPC. The said order was challenged by the respondents by way of revision petitions and the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari allowed the revision petitions vide impugned order dated 21.1.2008 and set aside the summoning order. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the Crl.Rev.No.1332 of 2008 2 petitioner-complainant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are reproduced herein below:-
"2. The case of the complainant was that he was owner in possession of certain land situated in village Taharpur Kalan and earlier his brother Fakru was also a co-sharer but he had sold his share to Nawab and Shakur sons of Fathedeen. The complainant being the brother of the vendor filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed. Respondents No.1 & 2 are the sons of said Fakru i.e. Brother of the complainant.
3. The respondents hatched a conspiracy and on 3.8.2004 at about 9.00 A.M. sent respondent Ravi Kumar alongwith some unknown person to the house of the complainant and the said person was introduced as a process server by Ramesh Chand. They were having some papers with them which they asked the complainant to thumb mark telling him that those were the summons regarding service in some case. The wife of the complainant also came and so did Nazar s/o Khairu. The thumb impressions of the complainant were obtained on some blank papers and Crl.Rev.No.1332 of 2008 3 on one of the said documents, respondent No.3 also put his signatures. Later on, the complainant had some doubt and made enquiries and he was told by respondent No.3 that the other person who had accompanied him on the relevant day, was not any process server and that he had been sent by respondents No.1 & 2 to obtain the thumb impressions of the complainant.
4. In September 2004, the complainant received a notice in civil case titled as Shakil etc. Vs. Jassa and along with the copies of the suit etc., copy of an agreement dated 22.2.82 was also attached which was typed in Hindi. The agreement was forged by respondents to grab the land of the complainant and they committed forgery in order to commit the offence of cheating."
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed.
LearnedAdditional Sessions Judge , in para Nos. 6 to 9 of the impugned order, has observed as under:-
"6. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents allegedly obtained the thumb impressions of the complainant on some blank papers on 3.8.2004 whereas the agreement allegedly forged was of Crl.Rev.No.1332 of 2008 4 22.2.1982. Also it is not believable that the complainant had thumb marked the blank paper though it was represented to him that it was summons from some court. Any person, even though totally illiterate, at least knows that summons from the court cannot be blank.
7. Further more, it may be pointed out that respondent Ramesh Chand s/o Bishna Ram, who is one of the main accused stating that he had brought one person with him and introduced him as a process server and got the thumb impression of the complainant, appeared as a witness for the complainant, as CW2. It is totally un-understandable as to how the complainant managed to produce one of the accused as a witness without even summoning him through court. It is not at all a digestible fact that the complainant simply asked one of the accused to come into the witness box and depose in his favour and he conveniently did so. Even otherwise the deposition of Ramesh Chand is not in consonance with the allegations in the complaint because according to the complainant, he (Ramesh) had brought one person who posed to be a process server whereas Ramesh Chand appearing in the court stated that he was having good relations with complainant Jassa and he Crl.Rev.No.1332 of 2008 5 was present at his house when some person was taken there and he stated that he was a process server and stated that he was carrying some summons where he, on that pretext, obtained the signatures of Ramesh Chand as well, as a witness on the document. According to the said witness also, the paper was blank. How he signed a blank paper as a witness, is also not explained. In any case, the story of producing one of the accused as his own witness by the complaint is quite unique and shows that all is not as it was shown by the complainant.
8. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that a suit on the basis of the agreement of sale has already been filed by the holder thereof against the complainant and this complaint was filed later on and it appears that the same was done to pressurize the plaintiffs in the suit.
9. The court, therefore, having not applied its mind to the material on record, ignored the fact that one of the accused had appeared as a witness of the complainant and just generally mentioned that the complainant was supported by CW2 and CW3 whereas it has been discussed above that CW2 had given a different version. The order being not legal is Crl.Rev.No.1332 of 2008 6 therefore, set aside. Both the revision petitions are allowed and the complaint stands dismissed."
The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are sound reasons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that it was not believable that the petitioner would have signed on some blank papers on 3.8.2004 though it was represented to him that it was a summon from some Court. Moreover, the petitioner has examined one of the accused as a witness. It was also not understandable as to why the witness would attest as an witness on a paper which was blank. The complaint has been filed by the petitioner after the filing of the civil suit by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 04, 2010 anita