COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: September 14 & Ors. v. The State of Haryana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petitions are allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 463
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 464
Judgment
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners in all the three petitions. Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG., Haryana. M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL) * * * This order will dispose of the above noted three petitions i.e., Crl. Misc. No.M-18735 of 2011, filed by Suresh and others; Crl. Misc. No.M-21448 of 2011, filed by Banwari Lal; and Crl. Misc. No.M-23127 of 2011, filed by Paras, for the grant of pre- arrest bail. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered at the instance of Ram Lal son of Munshi Ram complainant alleging that the petitioners had filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari of land measuring 87 kanals 10 marlas situated at village Bhattu Khurd, District Fatehabad, claiming that she was in cultivating possession of the land as gair marusi. The petitioner Suresh and others had facilitated the entry of Khasra Girdawrai of the said land belonging to the complainant in a deceitful manner by giving wrong address of the original owner-complainant.
They have allegedly made statement before the revenue authorities in support of claim of Paras Ram, resulting in entry of a mutation in favour of Paras Ram. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of Paras Ram by the revenue officer but in appeal filed by Paras Ram, the appellate revenue authority had set aside the order of the lower revenue authority and upheld the entry in favour of Paras Ram as ...2 Crl. Misc. No.M-18735 of 2011 gair marusi. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case any wrong revenue record has been prepared giving any wrong address of the original owner, the same an always be rectified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the revenue law. I have carefully considered the averments in the FIR and the circumstances of the present case. Initially the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tohana, had found that no offence had been committed but subsequently the matter was again investigated by the CID (Crime) not agreeing with the investigation/enquiry conducted by the above said DSPs.
Operative part
It will be debatable during trial whether the act of the petitioners constitute forgery under Section 463 Cr.P.C., or whether they have made any false document as defined in Section 464 IPC, in contest to the law laid down in Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (4) RCR (Crl.), 369. Without going into the details of the case, it is sufficient to observe that the petitioners have joined investigation except for Jawahar Lal. The complainant has got alternative remedy to get any revenue entry set aside by approaching the higher revenue authorities. It will be debatable whether an act done by a revenue officer on the basis of the record produced before him would constitute an offence. If any irregularity is alleged by the complainant. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. ...3 Crl. Misc. No.M-18735 of 2011 The petitions are allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioners will join investigation as and when required and that they will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner.
Nothing said in this order will prejudice the rights of the complainant in any civil proceedings. Anything observed is meant only for adjudication of this application. So far as Jawahar Lal is concerned, in case he does not join investigation on a written notice issued by the Investigating Officer, it will be open to the Investigating Agency to approach this Court for cancellation of bail. September 14, 2011. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE ...4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petitions are allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 463; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 464.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 14 Sep 2011. The bench was M M S BEDI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.