SEWA DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Sewa Dass has filed the present application under Section 378(4) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20.9.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar.

(2.) Vide impugned judgment and order, learned trial Court acquitted Dharam Pal and Jaipal, respondents No. 3 and 4, herein, of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 IPC whereas Birbal respondent No. 2 was also acquitted under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. At the same time, he was convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. The applicant has prayed for setting aside the acquittal of the accused/respondents.

(3.) While filing the complaint, the applicant had alleged that his father was married to Smt. Ompati daughter of Ami Lal son of Hardayal, resident of village Payal. The agricultural land of his maternal grand-father Ami Lal was situated at village Payal, who had expired 30 years back. He was survived by his sons Richhpal and Birsal, daughters Sarbati and Ompati and mother Samkauri. There was no other legal heir of Ami Lal excepting them. After the death of Ami Lal, Richhpal and Birbal in connivance with Baldev Singh Numberdar (since dead) got sanctioned mutation by playing fraud. The mutation was sanctioned in favour of Richhpal, Birsal, Ompati and Sarbati. After the death of Ompati and Sarbati, Birbal and complainant Sewa Dass were shown as legal representatives of Ompati. Sarbati was shown as issue less. Infact, Birbal was son of Sarbati whereas complainant was son of Ompati. Birbal was not the real brother of the complainant as he was son of his aunt Sarbati. In this manner, the accused in collusion with each other and with the intention to usurp the land of the complainant got sanctioned mutation by playing fraud and against the facts. After the death of Ram Kaur (Samkauri), widow of Ami Lal, mutation No. 852 was sanctioned in such a manner that the complainant was shown as owner to the extent of ?th share instead of th share. Accused Birbal showing himself to be the legal representative of Ompati, mother of the complainant got her land entered in his name by playing fraud and in collusion with Richhpal, Dharampal and Jaipal gifted the land vide Vasika No. 2967 dated 4.6.2004 in favour of Dharampal and Jaipal. Both Dharampal and Jaipal, being the cousins of the complainant and Birbal had full knowledge about the fraud, who intentionally got executed gift deed in favour of Dharampal and Jaipal. The complainant approached the higher authorities and also visited the Police Station for lodging a report but his request was not acceded to. Hence, he filed a private criminal complaint.