SUDISH KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2011 wherein on the protest petition of Sarabjeet Singh Anand, the petitioners Sudish Kumar, Urmil Arora, Joginder Singh Chabra, his wife Smt. Narender Kaur are summoned, they prefer the present petition. During the pendency of the present petition petitioner No.1 Sudish Kumar passed away and thus the present petition is now concerned only with the remaining three petitioners.

(2.) A complaint was made by respondent No.2 Sarabjeet Singh on 4 th November, 2008 to the post-office alleging that one Manjit Singh along with his associate Jagjit Advocate, Joginder Singh Chabra, his wife Smt Narender Kaur, Sudish Kumar and his wife Urmil Arora etc., got prepared three fake, forged and fabricated postal receipts bearing No. 0902, 0903 and 0904 all shown to be issued on 15th May, 2006 with forged postal stamp (seal of the District Court post-office) to show that service of one mandatory notice upon Sarabjeet Singh had been effected despite the fact that no such notice was sent or received and the said fake documents were prepared with the sole motive to use them against Sarabjeet Singh in a Court case.After a preliminary enquiry by the post-office, this complaint was forwarded to PS Subji Mandi. Thus on the complaint of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, FIR No. 76/2009 under Sections 468/476/465/471 IPC was registered at PS Subji Mandi and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Manjit Singh without arresting him, whereas Jagjit Singh, Sudish Kumar, Urmil Arora, Joginder Singh Chhabra and Smt. Narender Kaur were kept in column No.12. As per the charge-sheet, during investigation postal receipt bearing No. 0902, 0903 and 0904 were found to be fake and fabricated having not been issued by District Court post-office and the version of Manjit Singh during investigation was that he had misplaced the receipt and could not produce the same though a mandatory notice dated 13 th June, 2006 was prepared by his Advocate Jagjit Singh.

(3.) The protest petition filed by Sarabjeet Singh alleged shoddy investigation conducted by the investigating officer stating therein that in the civil suit for possession pending against him and his family members, Manjit Singh has stated in the plaint that he got mandatory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act drafted by Jagjit Singh, Advocate dated 13th June, 2006 which was served upon Sarabjeet Singh through registered post, however the postal receipt bearing No. 0902, 0903 and 0904 were found to be fake and fabricated not issued. It was further stated that Sudish Kumar, Urmil Arora, Joginder Singh Chhabra and Narender Kaur filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC in the suit for possession which application was allowed and they have been impleaded as parties in place of Manjit Singh and they have adopted the pleadings of Manjit Singh regarding service of mandatory notice upon him purportedly sent through registered post.