SARDUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sardul Singh has filed this petition u/ S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, for quashing the first information report No. 293, dt. 12-9-1988, for offences u/ Ss. 205, 209, 420, 467, 468, 506 and 471 read with S. 120-B of the I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, inter alia, on the ground that the taking of cognizance for the above referred offences by the Court is specifically barred by the provisions of S. 195, sub-sec. (1)(b)(i) (ii) and (iii) read with S. 340 of the Criminal P.C. and that by necessary implication, the investigation into such offences is also barred.

(2.) The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that on the application of Mst. Gurnam Kaur, complainant, the above said case was registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar. In that application, Mst. Gurnam Kaur had averred that she is the owner of the land measuring 98 Kanals 8 Marlas located in the revenue estate of village Beer Babran and has also constructed a house thereon. She has further averred that Sardul Singh accused entered into conspiracy with fourteen other persons, fully described therein, to usurp the land and in pursuance of the same, obtained a decree dt. 9-6-1988 from the Court of Shri S. P. Sharma, Sub Judge IInd Class, Hisar, by producing some other lady impersonating as Gurnam Kaur. The lady who had impersonated as Gurnam Kaur filed a written-statement and also made a statement in the Court admitting the claim of the accused-plaintiff regarding ownership over the land in dispute in favour of Sardul Singh, petitioner, as well as Baldev Singh, Joginder Singh and Shehanshah Singh. It is further alleged that Mst. Gurnam Kaur had entered into an agreement to sell this land to Bhalla Ram and Tek Chand but after the death of the latter, none of the heirs of Tek Chand and Bhalla Ram came to get the sale deed executed and thus the said agreement to sell was cancelled as per its terms. Regarding this agreement, civil suits are pending in the civil Court between the applicant and Bhalla Ram and hairs of Tek Chand deceased. Thus it is maintained that these persons had entered into conspiracy to play fraud upon the complainant for usurping the land. It is also maintained that the complainant is still in possession of the land and got an interim stay order from the civil Court restraining the accused in this case from disturbing her possession over the land in dispute.

(3.) In the return filed by the respondent-State, it is stated that it is a clear case of playing fraud upon Gurnam Kaur as the accused had produced some other lady instead of Gurnam Kaur before the civil Court and got a decree in their favour. It is further stressed that the report of the Hand-writing Expert clearly shows that the signatures of Gurnam Kaur, complainant, do not tally with the signatures figuring on the written-statement and Vakalatnama filed by the lady impersonating as such in the above referred civil suit.