LAKHWINDER SINGH GILL Vs. SUKHWANT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure ["the Code"] is for quashing of order dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure P/9) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby petitioner, Lakhwinder Singh Gill was ordered to be chargesheeted under Section 420 IPC and order dated 6.11.2012 (Annexure P/7) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha was set-aside.

(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this petition; that originally, a complaint dated 09.08.2006 (Annexure P-4) was filed by Sukhwant Singh against present petitioner, namely, Lakhwinder Singh Gill, Naib Tehsildar, Lambi and other co-accused namely, Sukhcharan Kaur, Niranjan Singh and Jaspal Singh (accused Nos. 2 to 4 respectively) on the ground that the complainant is in possession of land measuring 32 Kanals and 9 Marlas in Village Lambi and is in possession of the same since long and is cultivating the same. As per the jamabandi, the ownership has been shown to be of Provincial Government and same was allotted to Tehal Singh son of Sulakhan Singh, whereas Tehal Singh never remained in possession of the land. Tehal Singh died and inheritance was sanctioned in the name of his widow, daughters and son vide mutation No. 2189 though, the land never remained in possession of Tehal Singh or his inheritors. Earlier Piara Singh son of Tehal Singh was in possession of land and later on, the complainant and Jaspal Singh son of Piara Singh were in possession of the same. The corresponding entry was recorded in the Jamabandi and khasra girdawari and the possession of the complainant was in the knowledge of entire village. However, Sukhcharan Kaur and Niranjan Singh in connivance with Jaspal Singh, purchased the land vide sale deed Nos. 190 and 191 from the legal heirs of Tehal Singh without change of possession, whereas the legal heirs of Tehal Singh had no right to sell the land. Mutations No. 2217 and 2218 were sanctioned in their names, whereas the possession was of the complainant alone. The girdawari was recorded in the name of above accused, namely, Sukhcharan Kaur and Niranjan Singh even without visiting the spot. On appeal filed by the complainant against the said order and the same was set aside by Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Malout. After remand of the matter, Jaspal Singh was transferred and girdawari was restored in the name of the complainant. Thereafter, present petitioner, Lakhwinder Singh Gill was transferred to Lambi and the petitioner in-connivance with above mentioned accused Nos. 2 and 3, sanctioned girdawari in favour of Sukhcharan Kaur, Niranjan Singh vide order dated 10.10.2005, though he had no authority to do so. The said order was wrong and the same is transpired so because that was passed without any spot inspection and it was known to the present petitioner that the actual possession of the land was with the complainant. The jamabandi and girdawari were corrected accordingly just to help accused No. 2 and 3.

(3.) On this issue, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Gidderbaha passed the order dated 06.11.2012 and discharged the accused by recording the finding that a person in possession cannot claim to have perpetual right of possession over a piece of land, especially when land in question was allotted to a person, namely, Tehal Singh son of Sulakhan Singh, whose L.Rs sold the same to accused No. 2 and 3. Findings were also recorded that the complainant failed to establish as to how any inducement was given to accused to deliver any property against his rights. The observation was also recorded that the necessary correction was made in compliance with the order of District Collector and it had come on the file by way of cross-examination of the complainant himself that there is no rapat in the revenue record vide which the complainant got the possession, rather his name was recorded in the revenue record for the first time in the year 1978-1979 without there being any order in support thereof and another civil suit was pending. Taking all these factors into consideration, learned Magistrate passed the order of discharge of the accused persons under Section 245 of the Code.