SARUP SINGH Vs. BHAI BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the order dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure P-11), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the trial Court discharging the petitioner and other accused has been set-aside and the case has been sent back to the trial Court for deciding the same afresh.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per complainant, are that complainant Bhai Balwinder Singh had filed a complaint on the allegations that land bearing khasra no.163-?(19-?11) alongwith other land bearing Sanad Taqseem Aarazi Matruka No. BT.2/82/1 dated 29.03.1957, situated in village Bhagthala Kalan, was allotted to Bhai Balak Ram (Dharamshala Bhai Mela Ram Faqir) Zer Sarparasti Narain Singh son of Karam Singh Caste Arora Faqir Sewa Panthi through Maha Singh chela Bhai Balak Ram Sewa Panthi, vide Sanad dated 04.03.1963, under Section 12 of Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act, 1954. Maha Singh Chela Bhai Balak Ram remained in possession of aforesaid land as allottee. After the death of Bhai Maha Singh, his Chela Surjit Singh managed this land. Now complainant Bhai Balwinder Singh Chela Bhai Surjit Singh Chela Bhai Maha Singh has stepped into the shoes of Bhai Maha Singh Chela Balak Ram and is now managing the aforesaid land as allottee/owner. The ownership and possession of Bhai Maha Singh Chela Bhai Balak Ram was duly reflected in the jamabandis for the year 1961-?1962 till 1988-?1989 of village Bhagthala Kalan, Tehsil Faridkot now District Faridkot. In the year 1993, all the accused along with Gajjan Singh son of Deva Singh, resident of village Bhagthala Kalan (since deceased) entered into a criminal conspiracy to transfer the aforesaid land bearing khasra No. 163(19-?11) from the name of Bhai Maha Singh Chela Bhai Balak Ram to the name of Gajjan Singh, by illegal means and by doing illegal acts. Accused No.3 Sarup Singh was posted as Tehsildar-?cum-?Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Faridkot at that time and accused No.4 was posted as Revenue Patwari of village Bhagthala Kalan. Accused Nos.3 and 4 being officials were seized of the concerned revenue record in the year 1993. Accused Nos.1 and 2 alongwith their father Gajjan Singh wanted to grab this land by hook or by crook. In order to implement this criminal conspiracy, accused Nos.3 and 4 intentionally, illegally and malafidely and in order to cause wrongful gain to accused Nos.1 and 2 and their father Gajjan Singh and to cause wrongful loss to Bhai Maha Singh, prepared Farad Badar No.6. Accused No.4 with malafide intention made false report dated 10.08.1993 in said Farad that this land was wrongly transferred in the name of Maha Singh Chela Bhai Balak Ram and this land should be transferred in the name of Malkeeat Aarazi Matruka and said report was attested as correct by the then Kanungo on 18.08.1993 malafidely, knowing that these jamabandis were not wrong. Accused No.3 Saroop Singh attested this farad badar with malafide intention on 28.09.1993 and permitted to change the entries wrongly and illegally. The malafide intention and criminal conspiracy between all the accused and Gajjan Singh stood exposed on the same day i.e. 28.09.1993, when mutation No. 2677 was sanctioned by accused No.3 in favour of Gajjan Singh regarding ownership of aforesaid land bearing khasra No.163(19-? 11), which became more clear when accused No.4 being Patwari entered the mutation on 13.08.1993 even before the attestation of this farad badar by the then Kanungo on 18.08.1993 and by accused No.3 on 28.09.1993. The then Kanungo made verification on the mutation on 18.08.1993, that is on the same day when he made his attestation of Farad Badar. In this way, accused No. 4 and the then Kanungo acted very fast, when they entered and verified this mutation even before the passing of order on the Farad Badar by accused No.3 on 28.09.1993. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sons of Gajjan Singh in whose name the ownership of land was changes. All the accused had done this act just to grab the said land by cheating Maha Singh Chela Bhai Balak Ram. It was further stated in the complaint that the entries regarding ownership of land reflected in the jamabandies are not clerical mistakes and same can be changed only by the orders of the civil courts. The revenue officers have no right to change the entries regarding ownership in the last jamabandies by way of Farad Badars. Accused Nos.1 and 2 and their father Gajjan Singh made wrongful claim on the land bearing khasra No.163(19-?11) of village Bhagthala Kalan on the basis of alleged sale certificate No.5429 dated 04.09.1962 for Rs.840/-?, but the said sale certificate is not regarding the land bearing khasra no.163(19-?11). This very land was already in possession of Maha Singh Chela Bhai Balak Ram as per Sanad partition dated 29.03.1957 and never remained in possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 or their father Gajjan Singh. The possession of this land was never delivered to them by any lawful authority. In this way, accused alongwith Gajjan Singh, in execution of criminal conspiracy, committed forgery of the revenue record by preparing wrong farad badar and by wrongfully entering and sanctioning mutation no.2677. This Farad Badar and mutation are valuable security which put wrongful cover of ownership and possession regarding aforesaid land in favour of Gajjan Singh and accused Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with accused Nos. 3 and 4. On the basis of above said forged documents, accused No. 2 wrongfully transferred his share to accused No. 1 in the aforesaid land to defeat and delay the rights of complainant and accused Nos. 1 and 2 have wrongfully dispossessed Bhai Surjeet Singh Chela Bhai Maha Singh from the aforesaid land. It is further stated in the complaint that then Bhai Surjeet Singh filed a civil suit for possession on 25.02.2006. When complainant came to know about the forgery of aforesaid documents at the time of filing of suit, he alongwith Parminder Singh son of Partap Singh r/o village Bhagthala Kalan and Manjit Singh son of Jeevan Singh, went to accused and asked them as to why they have forged these documents, upon which accused stated that they wanted to cheat the predecessor in interest of complainant and therefore, they had forged the aforesaid documents.

(3.) The trial Court, after recording the preliminary evidence, vide order dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure P-2), summoned the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Thereafter, the case was fixed for pre-charge evidence and after recording the pre-charge evidence, the trial Court discharged the petitioner and other accused by passing the following order on 25.08.2014 (Annexure P-9):