MAYA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Code) by 4 persons who, along with 6 others, are facing trial under Sections 218, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC), in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Kurukshetra.

(2.) TWO civil suits (Nos. 379 and 380 of 1986) were filed by Smt. Banto (petitioner No. 3 herein) on February 8, 1985, seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff, Smt. Banto, had averred in her plaints in both the suits, that Smt. Sardari was the owner of certain land and that Smt. Sardari had executed a Will in her favour on June, 25, 1964 regarding her estate in village Fatehgarh. The plaintiff claimed to have become the owner of the suit land on the basis of that Will. She claimed that, after the death of Smt. Sardari, she was in possession of the suit land. Mutation was, however, wrongly sanctioned in favour of the defendants by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Radaur, on July 21, 1984 though mutation had already been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on December 26, 1983, on the basis of the Will. The plaintiff prayed that she may be declared to be the owner-in- possession of the land and the subsequent sanction of mutation be declared null and void. Both the suits were consolidated and tried together and were decided by a common judgment and decree dated September 10, 1987 (Annexure P- 3). The learned Sub Judge did not rely upon the Will which was produced and was the subject-matter in the suits. The suits were dismissed with the following observations :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has challenged the prosecution of the petitioners with the plea that in the absence of a complaint in writing by the Civil Court under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code, prosecution was invalid. Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code read as under :-