Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmail Singh vs Mohinder Singh on 14 November, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Revision No.3250 of 2012 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:14.11.2014
Gurmail Singh
...Petitioner
v.
Mohinder Singh
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.8.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the revision petition filed by accused-Mohinder Singh against the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, vide which charges for the offences under Sections 365, 385, 386, 457, 458, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120- B and 149 IPC were ordered to be framed against the accused in criminal complaint titled Gurmail Singh vs. Nachhattar Singh and others, was allowed and the impugned order qua him was set aside and he was discharged. However, revision petition filed by accused Nachhattar Singh and others against the above impugned order was dismissed being devoid of merits.
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR2014.11.25 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Rev. No.3250 of 2012 (O&M) [2]
It is mainly stated in the criminal revision petition that on 26.4.1993 at about 8.00 p.m., Nachhattar Singh, Gurmail Kaur, Bakhtawar Singh, Nirmal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Surjit Singh, Darshan Singh, Kuldip Singh and Darshan Singh Hundal came into the house of the petitioner at Village Badhni Kalan by scaling over the back wall of the house of the petitioner. All of them threatened the petitioner that they would kill him in case he does not transfer land in dispute in favour of Jagdip Singh. They forcibly took the petitioner from his house to CIA Staff, Moga, where on 28.4.1993 above stated persons forced the petitioner under the threat of death to sign the blank stamp paper and other papers and in the register of Document Writer-Ved Bhushan Aggarwal and register of Mohinder Singh-Stamp Vendor obtained his signatures at entry No.74 dated 28.4.1993. The petitioner told them that the above stated persons are getting his signatures on stamp papers and register forcibly, but they told the petitioner to sign wherever they wanted, if the petitioner wants to save his life. It is also stated in the petition that in the complaint the charges were framed against the above stated persons and all the accused filed the revision petitions and one of the revision petitions filed by Nachhattar Singh, Gurmail Kaur, Nirmal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Surjit Singh, Harnek Singh and Karnail Singh was dismissed whereas the revision petition filed by Mohinder Singh-respondent was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Moga.
Notice of motion was not issued in this criminal revision petition. However, it was tagged with the connected criminal HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.25 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Rev. No.3250 of 2012 (O&M) [3] miscellaneous petitions filed by the other accused, wherein the notice of motion was issued and Mr. B.S. Advocate appearing for the petitioner in this criminal revision has put in appearance for the respondent-Gurmail Singh therein.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has no where pointed out as to what illegality the learned Sessions Judge, Moga, has committed while passing the impugned order dated 1.8.2012, vide which the revision petition filed by Mohinder Singh Stamp-vendor has been accepted and he was discharged from the charges as framed against him.
In the revision petition, the Court is only to see as to what illegality has been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order. The Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence like Court of appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, Moga, while passing the impugned order has discussed the facts of the case in minute details as well as the law. The criminal and civil proceedings can be instituted simultaneously, but the decision of the civil Court is not binding on the criminal Court nor the decision of the criminal Court is binding on the civil Court. There are allegations that accused Mohinder Singh was also present when the alleged power of attorney Annexure-P.2 was got signed from the complainant by the other accused in the presence of the Police. It is alleged that, at that time, Gurmail Singh was also forced to sign in the register of Mohinder Singh, who was stamp vendor by profession. The HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.25 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Rev. No.3250 of 2012 (O&M) [4] alleged general power of attorney dated 28.4.1993 was allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of Nachhattar Singh at Moga on 28.4.1993. The learned Sessions Judge, Moga has also noted the fact that the criminal complaint was filed after lapse of seven years in the year 2000 and there is nothing on the record to prima facie establish that the remaining accused conspired with accused Mohinder Singh or that accused Mohinder Singh was related to the remaining accused in any manner. The findings given by the learned Sessions Judge, Moga are correct and as per law, which do not require any interference from this Court and the same are upheld.
Finding no merit in this criminal revision petition, the same is dismissed.
November 14, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.25 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh