HARMEET SINGH Vs. DHIAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-complainant allegedly purchased 1 kanal land out of khasra No.68/12/1 (3 kanals and 11 marlas of land) in the revenue estate of Manimajra, Chandigarh, vide registered sale deed dated 10.09.1992. According to him, a specific parcel of land was purchased by him out of land measuring 3 kanals and 11 marlas and possession was also handed over on the date of sale. The sale deed was executed by respondent No.2 as guardian of his sons, namely, Rahul Khanna, Manav Khanna and Atul Khanna. Subsequently, respondent No.2 sold 5 marlas of land to one Prakash Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh vide registered sale deed dated 10.12.1992. An allegation has also been made that the land purchased by the complainant was further sold to some other persons and the said persons tried to interfere in his possession, which necessitated the filing of a civil suit for injunction. The suit was however, dismissed because respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 made false statements on oath before the civil Court. Thus, an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C was filed for prosecution of the respondents.

(2.) The trial Court examined the preliminary evidence adduced by the petitioner and held that the record did not suggest any false statement was made by the respondents and rejected the application. The appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 was a Patwari and did not have the authority to conduct a demarcation. Thus, the demarcation report submitted on the record of the civil Court as Exhibit-D2 was one submitted and prepared by a person incompetent to do so. Respondent No.1 also appeared as a witness to prove the said demarcation report. This, according to him amounted to intentionally giving false evidence on oath. Thus, proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C should have been initiated against him. Since respondent No.1 appeared as a witness at the instance of respondent No.2, he was also equally liable. The Courts below were in error in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Further, the statement of the petitioner by way of preliminary evidence was sufficient to summon the respondents. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the Courts below and therefore, their judgments are erroneous.