S. PIRTHI PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. by respondent No.2/Chattar Singh S/o Jai Ram R/o 71, Village Hamayun Pur, New Delhi who has since passed away and is now represented by his two legal heirs i.e. Smt. Krishna and his wife and Smt. Risala his mother. In the complaint filed in the year 2003 Chattar Singh alleged that his grand-father Shri Gopal was the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No.42 measuring 6 Bighas and 4 Biswas within the revenue estate of village Hamayun Pur in the year 1950-51. Shri Gopal died on 1st Dec., 1953 leaving behind two sons namely Jai Ram and Sohan Lal. Jai Ram and Sohan Lal also died on 5th June, 1965 and 9th Nov., 1992 respectively. Chattar Singh claiming himself to be the legal heir of Jai Ram alleges that on 11th May, 2004 he came to know that the accused persons i.e. the three petitioners herein Prithi Pal Singh, Bhupinder Paul Singh and Jagjit Paul Singh all S/o late Pratap Singh filed some civil suit about the land noted above in the year 1979 claiming themselves to be rightful owner and claimants of all benefits of the said property. It is alleged that the petitioners prepared a forged sale deed in the year 1951 and got incorporated the mutuations of the land in their favour. It was the claim of Chattar Singh that the petitioners never remained in possession of the land in question and the thumb impression of his grand-father on the alleged sale deed was forged and fabricated.

(2.) On the directions of the Court under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. FIR No.551/2005 under Sec. 420/467/468/471/120B/34 Penal Code was registered at PS Sarojini Nagar. Pursuant to the investigation conducted a cancellation report was filed which was challenged by Chattar Singh by filing a protest petition. After hearing parties on the cancellation report, protest petition and with due notice to Chattar Singh/the complainant, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 22nd Nov., 2010 passed the following impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners:

(3.) As noted above, the investigating agency when filed the cancellation report got no specimen thumb impression of the grand-father of the complainant which could be tallied from the purported sale deed to come to the conclusion that the same was a forged and fabricated sale deed. In the protest petition and during the course of argument, case of Chattar Singh was that the signature of the witness Sohan Lal on the sale deed could have been compared with his signature on the Will dated 2nd Aug., 1989 and the other sale deeds. Despite noting these facts and there being no evidence which was collected by further investigation, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence because it had only a bald statement of Chattar Singh to prove the offence alleged, which would not have been sufficient to prove the offences alleged beyond reasonable doubt.