MANOJ KUMAR Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been directed against order dated 8.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar whereby the revision petition preferred by respondent Amarjit Singh against order dated 29.8.2007 passed by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib in regard to framing of charge against the petitioner (respondent herein) in complainant case titled "Charno v. Chanan Singh and others" was allowed and Amarjit Singh was discharged of the offence. The brief backdrop of the case is that Bhagat Ram @ Bhagta son of Gopi husband of complainant Charno (since deceased and now represented by petitioner Manoj Kumar) died on 28.11.1999. As per the allegations, Chanan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh sons of Jagta real brother of Bhagta forged unregistered Will in respect of inheritance of Bhagta in connivance with Amarjit Singh (respondent herein), Karam Singh and Jasbir Singh. The Will was stately scribed by Jasbir Singh and attested by Amarjit Singh and Karam Singh. After recording preliminary evidence, seven persons out of ten arrayed as accused, were summoned to face trial. One of the summoned persons died later and as a result, six persons including respondent Amarjit Singh put in appearance before the trial Court. After recording pre -charge evidence, Amarjit Singh was charged for commission of offence under Sections 120B, 466, 467, 468 IPC.

(2.) AMARJIT Singh preferred a revision petition against articles of charge framed against him which was allowed by the Court in revision vide impugned order dated 8.7.2009.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent has supported the impugned order with the submissions that the allegations against the respondent are that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with his co accused and forged the Will purported to be executed by Bhagta, predecessor -in -interest of Charno. It is contended that the alleged forged document has not seen the light of day in the criminal proceedings as well as the civil litigation initiated at the instance of Charno. It is further argued that even the co accused of the case who were tried for committing offence of forgery under Sections 466, 467, 468 IPC were acquitted of the charge of forgery while recording their conviction for offence under Sections 418 and 120B IPC only. It is further argued that there are no allegations against the respondent in regard to offence under Section 418 IPC.