02.2010 Jatinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri K.D.Sachdeva, Additional A.G. Punjab Shri Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the complainant. HARBANS LAL,J. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No. M 19607 of 2009 filed by Jatinderpal Singh accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., Criminal Misc. No. M 19819 of 2009 moved by Ram Lubhaya under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., Criminal Misc. No. M 20299 of 2009 filed by Pritam Singh, Kuldip Singh and Baljit Singh under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and Criminal Misc. No. M 20555 of 2009 filed by Puran Singh under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking their anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 50 dated 18.6.2009 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Ghuman, District Gurdaspur. The facts in brief are that Devinder Kaur widow of Hardial Singh moved an application before the police containing the allegations that “ I got married to Hardial Singh 22 years ago. At that time, my father-in-law Pritam Singh (referring to the petitioner) made a partition and gave our share of the property. My husband used to cultivate that land himself. There is a common tubewell in our fields, which is shared by us i.e. three co- Criminal Misc. No. M-19607 of 2009(O&M) 2 sharers namely Diwan Singh, Puran Singh, my husband Hardial Singh sons of Pritam Singh. 1/3rd of the total is my husband's share. I gave birth to two daughters namely Balwinder Kaur aged about 18 years and Manjinder Kaur 16 years of age out of whom one stays with my sister in Amritsar and is studying there and the second one stays with me and studies in Ghuman. My father-in-law Pritam Singh son of Buta Singh in collusion with my brothers-in-law Diwan Singh, Puran Singh, Kuldip Singh and Baljit Singh sons of Pritam Singh connived with the then Patwari Tejinder Singh and Kanungo Ram Lubhaya Halqa Antepur Johal and the then Naib Tehsildar of Sri Hargobindpur prepared a fake exchange deed with land of village Bagge Tehsil Ajnala though Pritam Singh does not own any land or property in village Bagge. I and my husband were not mentioned in this deed. My husband had died in 1994. After this, they got a fake mutation entered in the revenue department in 1999. When I went to get the girdawari of my land done, this fraud came to light. The above mentioned persons have deceived me as well as the government by fabricating false documents in connivance with each other.” Mr. Balraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Quadian, Police District Batala has filed affidavit in Criminal Misc. No. M 19819 of 2009 solemnly affirming therein that in the inquiry conducted by Shri Paramjit Singh Virk, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Amritsar it has been revealed that Pritam Singh(referring to the petitioner) in lieu of his land measuring 90 Kanals 16 Marlas situated at village Attepur Johal vide fake agreement of exchange dated 10.12.1998 got land measuring 90 Kanals 16 Marlas situated at village Bhunga, Tehsil Ajnala from his sons Diwan Singh, Puran Singh, Kuldip Singh and Baljit Singh though they had no land Criminal Misc. No. M-19607 of 2009(O&M) 3 at Bhunga. On the basis of the said fake and forged agreement of exchange, the then Halqa Patwari entered the mutation on 14.1.1999 and after verification, the circle quanungo on 21.1.1999 submitted the agreement of exchange to the Tehsildar Sub Division Sri Hargobindpur who after verifying the record sanctioned the mutation on 27.1.1999. Pritam Singh and his sons Diwan Singh, Puran Singh, Kuldip Singh and Baljit Singh in connivance with the witnesses and the revenue officials have done this act just to deprive the complainant Devinder Kaur widow of Hardial Singh deceased son of Pritam Singh which, led to the registration of case F.I.R. No. 50 dated 18.6.2009 against the petitioners. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted in one voice that the petitioners have been involved in this case after a delay of more than 10 years. It is further submitted that it is a family dispute and if there is exchange deed, the same can be got set aside by filing a civil suit in the court. To tide over these submissions, the learned State counsel maintained that the petitioners having fabricated the exchange deed in connivance with each other have committed a serious offence. Their custodial interrogation is required. I have well considered the rival contentions. From the inquiry report, it transpires that the exchange deed has been fabricated with an end in view to grab the share of the complainant whose husband has expired. As per revenue rules, when a document is produced before the patwari for getting the mutation sanctioned on its basis, Criminal Misc. No. M-19607 of 2009(O&M) 4 after ascertaining about its genuineness he enters the mutation on it. Thereafter, the concerned circle quanungo is to make necessary inquires. If Jatinder Pal Singh petitioner being patwari had checked the relevant revenue record before entering mutation on the alleged exchange deed, and made a report as per the same, this mischief would have not taken place. Further if Ram Lubhaya being Quanungo had performed his duty honestly, the situation would have been otherwise. Mr. Balraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police in his above referred affidavit has solemnly affirmed that during inquiry it surged to the surface that Pritam Singh petitioner in fact did not have land at Bhunga. If it was so, the question of exchange does not arise. The complainant was occasioned to report this matter to the police, when this fake exchange deed came to her notice. On instructions from the Investigating Officer, the learned State counsel informs that the proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for declaring the petitioners as Proclaimed Offenders are in progress. In the factual scenario, it would not be in the fitness of things to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. To my mind, their custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of eliciting or to disinterring as to how this exchange deed was brought into being and for what consideration the mutation on its basis was got sanctioned. As a sequel of the above discussion, all these four petitions are dismissed. February 3, 2010 RSK (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No Criminal Misc. No. M-19607 of 2009(O&M) 5