BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to the scope of authority to be exercised by the Court at the stage of framing of charge. While the petitioner alleges that the Court has transgressed into the arena of ascertaining the probative value of the evidence, the Court below had recorded that the petitioner has failed to make out any prima facie case against the accused persons. The Court had also noticed about the capacity of the petitioner to institute the complaint considering that the allegation was with respect to forgery of a Will by Charanjit Kaur in collusion with Raghbir Singh to deny share to her mother-in-law/Mohinder Kaur in the estate of her deceased husband. The dispute had been resolved between the mother-in-law/Mohinder Kaur as well as the accused daughter-in-law/Charanjit Kaur in the civil proceedings, where the accused gave up her claim on the basis of the alleged Will and agreed to the devolving of the estate by way of succession. Mohinder Kaur, neither instituted the complaint nor authorized the petitioner to file the same on her behalf. She also chose not to step into the witness-box to support the complaint. However, the petitioner contends that ignoring the absence of the original Will on record, charge ought to have been framed against the accused person as the decision of accused Charanjit Kaur to give up her claim to property on the basis of the Will, gives rise to a suspicion that the Will was forged.

(2.) The present petition raises challenge to the judgment dtd. 6/3/2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in Revision Petition No.23 as well as the order dtd. 1/7/2019 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khamanon by invoking the power of the High Court under Sec. 482 CrPC and alleging that the said judgement/order discharging the respondents has been passed in complete disregard to the statute and the precedent judgements. Arguments of petitioner:

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner Balbir Singh is brother of deceased Ranjit Singh, who died on 30/11/2018. The petitioner along with his three brothers were joint-owners to the extent of 1/4th share in the property each. It is alleged that Ranjit Singh (since deceased), husband of respondent No.2-Charanjit Kaur, had not executed any Will regarding his movable and immovable property. Hence, after the death of Ranjit Singh, his property was to be divided by succession amongst the three right-holders namely Mohinder Kaur (mother of Ranjit Singh), Charanjit Kaur (widow of Ranjit Singh) and Mandeep Kaur (daughter of Ranjit Singh). It is further alleged that respondent No.2-Charanjit Kaur in connivance with respondent No.3-Raghbir Singh fabricated of false Will dtd. 8/11/2008 in her favour in a fraudulent manner, with an object to grab the property of the deceased Ranjit Singh. The said Will was submitted to the revenue authorities and consequently the share of deceased Ranjit Singh was transferred in her favour and Mutation No.1987 sanctioned.