JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER made in the present petition is for issuing direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to register FIR against respondent Nos. 5 to 9.

(2.) THE allegation made in the petition is that the petitioners had purchased 3 Kanal 19 marla of land from Kartar Singh and others and the mutation in this regard was sanctioned in their favour according to the shares disclosed in the petition. Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 shows the ownership of respective petitioners. Bua Singh, respondent No. 5, is stated to be owner of 13 Marlas of land and this fact is in the knowledge of respondent Nos. 5 to 9. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are the revenue officials. It is alleged that respondent Nos. 5 to 9 hatched a criminal conspiracy to deprive the petitioners of their property of 65.5 marla in Khata Khatauni No. 24/79, Khasra No. 36//23/1 (3-19) by selling it to the nephews of respondent No. 7, Gulzar Singh, who is Kanungo and real beneficiary of the land. Basic allegation is that respondent No. 5 has managed to sell 65.5 marla of land to the nephews of respondent No. 7. It is on this basis, it is urged that offence of cheating is made out against the respondents, for which a case be registered against them. Counsel for the petitioners has argued at length to say that as per Section 154 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory upon the S.H.O. to register an FIR against the accused persons on receiving information of cognizable offence. The counsel had gone to the extent of pleading that inaction on the part of S.H.O. would make him liable for an offence under Section 166 I.P.C. According to the counsel, the offence of cheating is clearly made out and hence, incumbent upon the part of S.H.O. to register FIR. He has made reference to the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2006(2) RCR(Criminal) 197 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal 541 : AIR 2006 SC 1322.