Jan Mohammad Vs. JuhruddIn and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1131590
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-11-2014
AppellantJan Mohammad
RespondentJuhruddIn and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-10202 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision: february 11, 2014 jan mohammad ...petitioner versus juhruddin and another ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh present: mr.sunil panwar, advocate for the petitioner. mr.sachin mittal, advocate for respondent no.1. mr.subhash godara, addl. advocate general, haryana for the respondent-state. **** inderjit singh, j. the petitioner has filed this petition against juhruddin and state of haryana under section 482 cr.p.c.praying for quashing of order dated 08.09.2011 passed by learned judicial magistrate ist class, ferozepur jhirka, ordering framing of charge, consequent charge sheet dated 08.09.2011 and the impugned revisional judgment dated 08.02.2012 passed by learned addl. sessions judge, nuh and for consequent discharge of the petitioner. it is stated in the petition that the complainant juhruddin and his two brothers namely mohammad isa and isa mohammad, sold the disputed land in favour of the petitioner and his five brothers gulati vineet 2014.03.06 12:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-10202 of 2012 -2- vide two separate sale deeds dated 03.06.1977. the actual physical possession of the disputed land was handed over to the purchaser (present petitioner and his brothers.at the time of sale. it is also stated that allegation regarding alleged forgery and fabrication of the disputed sale deeds are subject matter of the suit and have to be established by leading evidence in civil suit. it is also stated in the petition that civil suit has already been filed for declaring the sale deeds as illegal, null and void. it is further stated in the petition that in criminal complaint, after recording preliminary evidence, accused including petitioner no.1 were summoned to face trial. thereafter, pre-charge evidence was recorded and vide order dated 08.09.2011, accused were ordered to be charge-sheeted and consequently, charge was framed against the present petitioner and co-accused. a criminal revision petition was filed against the order dated 08.09.2011 of framing of charge and that revision petition was also dismissed. it is also stated in the petition that the order and judgment passed by the courts below are illegal, arbitrary, pervers.and result of misappropriation of facts. reply contesting the petition has been filed by respondent no.2. at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and instant criminal complaint has been filed after 26 years of the execution of the disputed sale deeds. he also argued that when civil suit is pending, criminal case is not maintainable. it is further argued gulati vineet 2014.03.06 12:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-10202 of 2012 -3- that charge has been framed in a mechanical manner. learned counsel for respondent no.1 contested the petition and argued that civil and criminal proceedings can be filed at the same time. he argued that sale deeds have been executed by way of impersonation and there is finger print expert's report on the file and the charges are made out from the evidence led for the purpose of charge. i have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. from the record, i find that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued anything that no offence is made out from the adjudication of the complaint nor he argued that from the evidence led by the complainant for the purpose of charge, no prima facie case is made out. he has argued only that this case is of civil nature and civil suit is pending. as regarding this argument, i find that it is now settled law that civil as well criminal case can go side by side. the mere fact that civil suit has been filed to set aside the sale deeds, is no ground that the criminal complaint cannot be filed. the allegation in the criminal complaint are of forgery and fabrication of the sale deeds on the basis of impersonation. the finger print expert's report, as argued, is also on the record showing that thumb impression has not been marked by the owner on the sale deed but is of some other person. the mere fact that the complaint has been filed after 26 years of the execution of the sale deed, is also no ground to show that no prima facie case is gulati vineet 2014.03.06 12:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-10202 of 2012 -4- made out. there is nothing on the record to show that these sale deeds were in the knowledge of the complainant earlier. otherwise also, in the revisional court, learned counsel for the revisionist has only argued on two points that the present complaint is time barred and that the revisionist were juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence. the benefit regarding juvenile has been given by the revisional court and the lower court has been directed to consider the case of khurshid ahmed, aizaz hussain, sarwar hussain, mohd. iqbal and samim ahmed afresh in the light of finding regarding juvenile etc.whereas the revision filed by jan mohammad, the present petitioner, was dismissed. the revisional court found no illegality in the impugned order regarding framing of the charge. in view of the above discussion, i find that no illegality has been pointed out in the order of the learned judicial magistrate ist class, ferozepur jhirka as well as in the judgment of the appellate court. therefore, finding no merit, the present petition is dismissed. (inderjit singh) february 11, 2014 judge vgulati gulati vineet 2014.03.06 12:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-10202 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 11, 2014 Jan Mohammad ...Petitioner VERSUS Juhruddin and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr.Subhash Godara, Addl.

Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition against Juhruddin and State of Haryana under Section 482 Cr.P.C.praying for quashing of order dated 08.09.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, ordering framing of charge, consequent charge sheet dated 08.09.2011 and the impugned revisional judgment dated 08.02.2012 passed by learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nuh and for consequent discharge of the petitioner.

It is stated in the petition that the complainant Juhruddin and his two brothers namely Mohammad Isa and Isa Mohammad, sold the disputed land in favour of the petitioner and his five brothers Gulati Vineet 2014.03.06 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-10202 of 2012 -2- vide two separate sale deeds dated 03.06.1977.

The actual physical possession of the disputed land was handed over to the purchaser (present petitioner and his brotheRs.at the time of sale.

It is also stated that allegation regarding alleged forgery and fabrication of the disputed sale deeds are subject matter of the suit and have to be established by leading evidence in civil suit.

It is also stated in the petition that civil suit has already been filed for declaring the sale deeds as illegal, null and void.

It is further stated in the petition that in criminal complaint, after recording preliminary evidence, accused including petitioner No.1 were summoned to face trial.

Thereafter, pre-charge evidence was recorded and vide order dated 08.09.2011, accused were ordered to be charge-sheeted and consequently, charge was framed against the present petitioner and co-accused.

A criminal revision petition was filed against the order dated 08.09.2011 of framing of charge and that revision petition was also dismissed.

It is also stated in the petition that the order and judgment passed by the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary, perveRs.and result of misappropriation of facts.

Reply contesting the petition has been filed by respondent No.2.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and instant criminal complaint has been filed after 26 years of the execution of the disputed sale deeds.

He also argued that when civil suit is pending, criminal case is not maintainable.

It is further argued Gulati Vineet 2014.03.06 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-10202 of 2012 -3- that charge has been framed in a mechanical manner.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contested the petition and argued that civil and criminal proceedings can be filed at the same time.

He argued that sale deeds have been executed by way of impersonation and there is finger print expert's report on the file and the charges are made out from the evidence led for the purpose of charge.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

From the record, I find that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued anything that no offence is made out from the adjudication of the complaint nor he argued that from the evidence led by the complainant for the purpose of charge, no prima facie case is made out.

He has argued only that this case is of civil nature and civil suit is pending.

As regarding this argument, I find that it is now settled law that civil as well criminal case can go side by side.

The mere fact that civil suit has been filed to set aside the sale deeds, is no ground that the criminal complaint cannot be filed.

The allegation in the criminal complaint are of forgery and fabrication of the sale deeds on the basis of impersonation.

The finger print expert's report, as argued, is also on the record showing that thumb impression has not been marked by the owner on the sale deed but is of some other person.

The mere fact that the complaint has been filed after 26 years of the execution of the sale deed, is also no ground to show that no prima facie case is Gulati Vineet 2014.03.06 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-10202 of 2012 -4- made out.

There is nothing on the record to show that these sale deeds were in the knowledge of the complainant earlier.

Otherwise also, in the revisional Court, learned counsel for the revisionist has only argued on two points that the present complaint is time barred and that the revisionist were juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence.

The benefit regarding juvenile has been given by the revisional Court and the lower Court has been directed to consider the case of Khurshid Ahmed, Aizaz Hussain, Sarwar Hussain, Mohd.

Iqbal and Samim Ahmed afresh in the light of finding regarding juvenile etc.whereas the revision filed by Jan Mohammad, the present petitioner, was dismissed.

The revisional Court found no illegality in the impugned order regarding framing of the charge.

In view of the above discussion, I find that no illegality has been pointed out in the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka as well as in the judgment of the Appellate Court.

Therefore, finding no merit, the present petition is dismissed.

(INDERJIT SINGH) February 11, 2014 JUDGE Vgulati Gulati Vineet 2014.03.06 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh