AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJMER Singh, petitioner has come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 464 dated August 18, 1983 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 193 IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 registered at Police Station Zira, district Ferozepur (Annexure P -6) and summoning order passed by SDJM, Zira, dated April 10, 1990. The brief facts may be enumerated.

(2.) AJMER Singh is the grandson (daughter's son) of Bachan Kaur, who died on April 4, 1978, Earlier Bachan Kaur and other co -sharers in the property situated at Mallanwala had executed a general power of attorney in favour of Ajmer Singh. On December 17, 1980, a sale -deed was executed and got registered by Ajmer Singh acting as attorney for all the co -sharers including Bachan Kaur, who had since died, Bachan Kaur had also executed a Will in favour of Ajmer Singh on March 8, 1978. The case was registered on the basis of a report made by the Tehsildar. The police after investigation sent up a cancellation report and found that no criminal offence is made out. The SDJM was not satisfied with the report and on the basis of the evidence collected by the police, he found a case worth summoning Ajmer Singh, petitioner. Mr. Midha, who appears for the petitioner, urges that it was only by inadvertence that the share of Bachan Kaur was sold by Ajmer Singh by claiming himself to be only as an attorney, though he had himself become owner of the land on that date by virtue of the registered Will. The Will was a registered document and its marginal witnesses Dharam Singh and Rajinder Singh, who had been examined by the police had confirmed the due execution of the document. Ajmer Singh was not, thus, to make any unlawful gain by executing the document as attorney for Bachan Kaur and instead of showing himself as the owner himself. He further urges that the evidence collected by the police did not make out a case of any forgery or cheating and the Magistrate had not recorded any reason to differ with the report made by the police and the order in fact is a non -speaking order. He further submits that the offence, if any, took place on December 17, 1980 and its taking of cognizance on April 10, 1990, is barred by the rule of limitation contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C.

(3.) I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel. The investigating agency had collected evidence of their being a duly executed and registered Will by Bachan Kaur in favour of the petitioner. That evidence establishes that the petitioner had become owner qua the share of Bachan Kaur. He, however, continued to be the Attorney for the other co -sharers. In this situation, there were chance of his being described as an attorney for all the recorded owners, by inadvertence on behalf of the scribe. He did not make any wrongful gain again. The Investigating agency, had on the basis of the evidence collected, correctly formed the opinion that no criminal offence is made out.