HARMESH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that order and charge sheet (Annexures P1 and P2) framed against the petitioners is a mechanical order. Trial Court has not appreciated, that the prosecution evidence is on the basis of hear-say evidence and cannot be relied upon.

(2.) Jyoti and Nathu, as per the prosecution case, were owners of agricultural land in village Kulbanoo. They were shown as owners in possession of 198 kanals 10 marlas of land. They left the village many years back and thereafter they were not heard of. On 17.11.1992, the petitioners got a general power of attorney executed in the name of petitioner Mukhtiar Singh from Jyoti by putting up a false person in the name of Jyoti. It is further alleged that on the basis of this power of attorney, petitioner Mukhtiar Singh executed two sale deeds dated 31.3.1995 in favour of Balbir Kaur and Harpal Kaur, wives of petitioners No.1 and 2. Jagdish Rai, Naib Tehsildar Patran was also a party to this fraud.

(3.) FIR registered against the petitioners is on the basis of secret information. No individual person has come forward to record the FIR. Learned counsel has prayed that Annexures P1 and P2 be quashed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.