Judgment:
CRR No.1226 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRR No.1226 of 2013 DATE OF DECISION : 11.09.2013 Puran Singh …Petitioner Versus Hans Raj and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.
Present : Mr.R N Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The present petition lays challenge to judgment dated 04.01.2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against acquittal of the respondents by the trial Court has been dismissed, affirming judgment dated 18.02.2012, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind.
The allegations against the accused, as per the complaint, EX PW2/A, submitted by petitioner Puran Singh, are that accused No.1 to 4 in connivance with accused No.5 to 9 executed sale deed dated 27.03.2006 in respect of 30 kanals 1 marla of land, which was agreed to be sold by Sawalia, predecessor-in-interest of accused No.1 to 4, vide agreement to sell dated 26.02.1975, Ex.
PW1/A, in favour of the petitioner.
Another allegation against the accused is that Kasturi Devi, who had already died on 02.02.2012, was represented by an impersonator in execution of the aforesaid sale deed along with accused No.1 to 4.
The accused were charged for offence under Section 420 read Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.19 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1226 of 2013 2 with Section 120-B and 468 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC').During pendency of the trial, accused namely, Attar Singh, Lakhmi Chand and Harikesh passed away.
The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the offence charged against them and as a result, they were acquitted of the offence.
The judgment passed by the learned trial Court has been affirmed in appeal with the finding that the impugned judgment is self explanatory and well reasoned and as a result does not warrant any interference.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the judgments passed by the trial Court as well as in appeal and find no reason to interfere.
Indisputably, the alleged forged document-sale deed executed on 27.03.2006 did not see the light of day in the proceedings.
The learned trial Court rightly relied upon a judgment of this Court in 'Budh Ram v.
State of Haryana', 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 352, wherein it has been held that original documents in respect whereof forgery was committed, not brought on record and, therefore, conviction is liable to be set aside as the offence of forgery can only be committed in relation to the original document and not with respect to the copies thereof.
Counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any contrary law.
Accused were also charged for offence under section 420 IPC i.e.committing fraud with the complainant.
A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that the Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.19 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1226 of 2013 3 petitioner made a complaint against the accused, the vendors and vendees respectively of the sale deed dated 27.03.2006, on the allegations that the accused committed fraud and forgery as an agreement of sale was executed by Sawalia, the predecessor-in-interest of accused No.1 to 4 during his life time, vide agreement to sell dated 26.02.1975.
Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the suit filed by the complainant on the basis of said agreement of sale seeking specific performance thereof, was dismissed by the trial Court and the judgment passed by the trial Court has been affirmed in appeal.
This apart, the execution of sale deed by the owners during subsistence of an agreement to sell executed prior to sale transaction as propounded by the complainant may cause prejudice to the vendees of the sale deed and not to the complainant or beneficiary under the agreement to sell.
In this context, a reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Md.Ibrahim and others v.
State of Bihar and otheRs.2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 369.
In Md.Ibrahim's case (supra).Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that accused selling property of the complainant (owner).claiming himself to be the owner.
Accused cheated the purchasers and not the owner.
Purchasers can file complaint and not the owner and the sale deed cannot be said to be a forged document.
In the case in hand, the complainant is neither the owner of the property nor he is the purchaser under the sale deed alleged to be a forged document.
His plea with regard to an agreement to sell in his favour has already been rejected by the Courts.
If an owner of property cannot initiate criminal proceedings under section 420 IPC on the plea that the accused sold his property claiming himself to be owner.
It is Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.19 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1226 of 2013 4 hard to believe that a proposed vendee under an agreement to sell is competent to do so.
It is appropriate to mention that an owner stands on a much higher footing than a proposed vendee to stake his right to the property of his ownership.
This apart, accused No.1 to 4 are admittedly owners of the land in dispute after demise of Sawalia.
The complainant has already lost the civil litigation on the basis of an agreement to sell purported to be executed by Sawalia.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any error much less infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below as would call for interference in consistent findings of acquittal in favour of the accused.
In the result, the petition is dismissed in limine.
11.09.2013 (REKHA MITTAL) mohan JUDGE Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.19 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh