DARSHAN SINGH Vs. RANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is before this Court. Petition under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed at his behest against the order passed by Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, dated 2nd of May, 2015 (Annexure P-3).

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication in the present petition are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner claiming that he and Manjit Singh are real brothers. Jaswinder Kaur is legally wedded wife of Manjit Singh. In order to save matrimonial relation of Manjit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur, his brother i.e. petitioner purchased a plot in the name of Jaswinder Kaur vide Registered Sale Deed dated 19th of June, 1989. After Jaswinder Kaur and Manjit Singh migrated to Canada relations between petitioner and his brother and his family got strained. It has been alleged that Manjit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur started threatening petitioner to dispossess him from the plot purchased by him in the name of Jaswinder Kaur ibid. Petitioner preferred Civil Suit which was dismissed. Appeal arising out the same also admittedly stands dismissed. He further claims that the said plot has been sold by Jaswinder Kaur through her sister acting as her Attorney namley Ranjit Kaur vide Sale Deed dated 28th of December, 2007. It has been asserted that Power of Attorney dated 23rd of November, 2000 executed by Jaswinder Kaur in favour of the Ranjit Kaur instead stood revoked on 3rd of June, 2002. Thus, the said Sale Deed dated 28th of December, 2007 is result of fraud. All the respondents were said to be guilty of having committed offence punishable under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471, 217, 120-B IPC. Trial Court at the time of summoning found that offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC was made out against the accused Jaswinder Kaur and Ranjit Kaur and, thus, ordered that they be summoned to face trial vide order dated 25th of January, 2014. The said order has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

(3.) Ranjit Kaur challenged the aforesaid order before the Revisional Court. It was held by the Revisional Court that :-