LAKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Criminal Case No. 187 of 2000, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur (for brevity, the trial court), arising out of FIR No. 80 of 21.07.1999, recorded at Police Station, Kalanaur under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), prosecution made an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code) for summoning Lakhbir Singh (wrongly written as Lakhwinder Singh), Jasbir Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Bhupinder Singh sons of Darshan Singh, and Sukhwinder Singh and Baljinder Singh sons of Tarlok Singh as additional accused on the averments that witnesses examined by the prosecution had pointed towards their culpability in the commission of the offence. The application, after contest, was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 12.09.2006 by observing as under:

(2.) RESPONDENTS , viz. the State and the complainant, are contesting the petition.

(3.) IT is strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that the material available on record, even if allowed to go unrebutted, is not sufficient to record a finding of conviction against the petitioners in so far as there is only a casual reference to the petitioners as conspirators in the commission of the stated crime whereas the fact remains that they are not signatories to the disputed sale deeds and there is no evidence even to prove their presence at the time of, nor are they shown to have participated in, the execution of the sale deeds in question. According to Shri Dhaliwal, only because the petitioners are beneficiaries under the sale deeds in question, they cannot be said to be party to the conspiracy, if any. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. Ram Niwas and Anr., JT 2009(8) SC 219: 2009(8) SCALE 284:(2009)14 SCC 25: [2009]8 SCR 878, Salam versus State of Haryana, 2011(2) RCR(Criminal) 441 and Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. versus State of Gujarat and Anr., 2012 CriLJ 430: JT 2011(14) SC 82:2011(3) RCR(Criminal) 852:2011(8) SCALE 542: (2011)13 SCC 316: [2011]9 SCR 1138. Per Contra, on behalf of the respondents, with reference to deposition of PW1, Harbhajan Singh and PW5, Arvind Salwan, it has been argued, with no less vehemence, that PW1, Harbhajan Singh has specifically stated on oath that the petitioners have hatched a conspiracy to get the disputed sale deeds executed in their favour by playing a fraud and impersonation, and PW5, Arvind Salwan has proved on record report of enquiry to support what PW1, Harbhajan Singh has said. Reference has also been made to copy of judgment and decree dated 02.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur in Civil Suit No. 138 of 2002, Harbhajan Singh versus Lakhbir Singh etc. whereby civil court has declared the sale deeds in question to be fraudulent. On behalf of the respondents reliance has also been placed upon Moti Lal Songara versus Prem Praksh @ Pappu and Anr., AIR 2013 SC 2078: 2013 CriLJ 2977: JT2013(7) SC 376: 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 333: 2013(7) SCALE 320: (2013)9 SCC 199, Dharam Pal and Ors. Versus State of Haryana and Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3018: 2013 CriLJ 3900: JT2013(10) SC 572:(2013)172 PLR 230: 2013(3) RCR(Criminal) 787: 2013 (9) SCALE 207 and Uma Shankar Singh versus State of Bihar and Anr., JT2010(9) SC 512: (2010)9 SCC 479: [2010]10 SCR 1132.