BAGGA RAM Vs. GURPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief ventilated in the instant petition is for quashing of complaint No. RBT107/2 of 2009 instituted under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code besides for quashing of the order of 26.9.2014 whereby the learned Magistrate concerned on the anvil of the statement of the complainant and other witnesses concluded therefrom of there being sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for his allegedly committing the offences constituted in the complaint aforesaid whereupon she stood constrained to issue summons upon the accused.

(2.) The gravamen of the complaint lodged against the petitioner besides other co-accused is qua effectuation of a gift deed qua the property reflected in paragraph 3 of the complaint by its donor one Smt. Akki vis.a.vis the donee thereunder one Dawarki standing imbued with a vice of falsity also its being ridden with a stark stain of fictitiousness, stains whereof permeating it getting awakened from its standing presented for registration before the registering authority concerned not by its donor concerned rather its standing presented therebefore by a person impersonating the donor whereupon its standing accepted for registration by the Sub Registrar concerned imputing no validation to it. If the allegations aforesaid constituted in the complaint instituted against the petitioner/accused besides other co-accused hold veracity, this Court would stand forbidden to accord the relief as prayed for by the petitioner/accused. However, the ascription of an inculpatory role to the petitioner/accused spurs from the factum of his purportedly accepting for registration a gift deed purportedly executed by its donor Akki Devi vis.a.vis its donee one Dawarki even when it stood not presented before him by the donor rather it standing presented therebefore by a person impersonating her, entailing it to hold a vice of falsity also thereupon an inference standing aroused of the petitioner/accused for ensuring its registration hence prima facie holding conspiracy with the presenter of the gift deed. Uncontrovertedly, the factum of the petitioner/ accused not at the relevant time holding office of the Sub Registrar concerned contrarily enhances a conclusion of his not accepting for registration the gift deed purportedly not presented by its donor before the Sub Registrar concerned rather her appearance before the Sub Registrar concerned standing impersonated. Also with evident display of one Mr. R.L.Rao, holding office of the Sub Registrar concerned at the relevant time of the relevant gift deed standing presented besides accepted for registration rendered him amenable to face penal inculpation if any arousable from despite Akki Devi the donor under the relevant gift deed not presenting it before him rather her appearance before him standing impersonated, his yet accepting it for registration. In aftermath, no inculpatory role can obviously stand fastened upon the accused/petitioner qua his in the purported capacity of the Sub Registrar concerned ordering the acceptance for registration a purportedly fictitious gift deed purportedly not executed by its donor nor any penal inculpation can stand fastened qua him qua despite Akki Devi not recording her appearance before the Sub Registrar concerned the latter proceeding to accept it for registration. Even otherwise the mere factum of acceptance of the relevant gift deed for registration by the Sub Registrar concerned despite the donor thereunder not appearing before him rather her appearance therebefore standing impersonated would not per se attract any penal culpability qua him unless palpable evidence of vigorous potency exists hereat qua despite his holding knowledge qua the identity of the owner his yet proceeding to order for its registration. Since the aforesaid evidence is amiss no inculpation can stand fastened qua the Sub Registrar concerned qua his accepting for registration the apposite gift deed.

(3.) In the complaint the accused/petitioner is alleged to order for attestation of mutation of exchange qua the land acquired under the gift deed by its donee Dawarki Devi vis.a.vis the land of another title holder whereupon an ascription qua his holding the relevant mens rea of a dishonest intention to attest the mutation of exchange qua the land enunciated in the gift deed vis.a.vis the land of another title holder occurring elsewhere yet the ascription aforesaid qua penal culpability qua him stands neither hinged nor anchored upon the indispensable evident fact of his thereat holding knowledge qua the acquisition of title by Dawarki Devi under a gift deed executed qua her by Akki Devi holding a vice of falsity. Palpably when the aforesaid evidence stood not produced before the learned Magistrate prior to his/her proceeding to order for issuing of summons upon the petitioner/accused, as a corollary, the factum of the accused/petitioner attesting the relevant mutation of exchange comprising the land held by Dawarki Devi under a purported fictitious gift deed made in her favour by one Akki, the latter whereof stood purportedly impersonated before the Sub Registrar concerned at the time contemporaneous to its standing accepted by him for registration, would not attract qua him any inculpatory role. Furthermore, the relevant attestation of mutation of exchange vis.a.vis. the land of Dawarki Devi with the land of one Bhagwan Dass is averred in the complaint to be fictitiously recorded, fictitiousness whereof ingraining it stands espoused to stem from the factum of one aforesaid Bhagwan Dass not thereat surviving. However, even in the aforesaid mistake as stood committed by the accused/petitioner no inculpatory role can stand fastened upon him predominantly when the LRs of Bhagwan Dass alone stood aggrieved by the factum of the relevant mutation of exchange not standing recorded in their favour whereas theirs not instituting a complaint qua the mistake aforesaid committed by the accused/petitioner also when the relevant mutation in prompt sequel to the relevant mistake standing detected was proposed before the SDM concerned for its review standing ordered, proposal whereof stood accepted by the SDM Nalagarh, whereupon the mistake in the attestation of mutation of exchange qua the land of Dawarki Devi the donee under the relevant gift deed with the land of deceased Bhagwan Dass stood rectified, is a palpable display, of the aforesaid mistake which occurred in the relevant attestation of mutation of exchange of the land of Dawarki Devi with the land of deceased Bhagwan Dass standing rectified promptly, as a corollary its prompt rectification besides the aggrieved LRs of Bhagwan Dass not on the incorrect mutation standing attested instituting a complaint enhances an inference of it being construable to be a bonafide mistake whereupon no culpability can be ascribable qua the accused/petitioner. Aggravated momentum to the aforesaid conclusion is lent by the SDM concerned who had ordered for the relevant mutation of exchange being reviewed, standing, in pursuance to the apposite communications displayed in Annexure P-8, disarrayed from the array of accused, annexure whereof holds the statement of the complainant, factum whereof evinces a stark conclusion of the complainant accepting the bonafides of the Officer concerned who ordered qua the rectification of the mistake which had occurred in the earlier attestation of mutation of exchange qua the land of Dawarki Devi acquired by her under the purportedly fictitious gift deed recorded in her favour by Akki Devi vis.a.vis the land of deceased Bhagwan Dass, with a concomitant sequel of the complainant also acquiescing to the factum of the earlier mistake being bonafide whereupon he cannot concert of any ascription of an inculpatory role vis.a.vis the petitioner herein being fastenable upon him.