Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 449 (PNJ)

Surjit Kaur v. Balbir Singh

2001-04-23

AMAR DUTT

body2001
JudgmentJudgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 11374-M of 2000 filed by Surjit Kaur and Crl. Misc. No. 23776-M of 2000 filed by Sukhdarshan Lal and another through which the petitioners seek quashing of complaint No. 16 dated 11.1.1999 under Sections 466, 468 and 471 IPC which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Magistrate First Class, Barnala, in which after summoning the petitioners charge stood framed against them. According to the petitioners on 12.1.1984 mutation No. 1176 was entered in her favour on the basis of a Will executed by her father and she was recorded owner in possession of 83 kanals of land. This Will was challenged by her sister Mohinder Kaur in a civil suit which was decreed and mutation was set aside on 30.4.1986. The appeal was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Barnala on 19.1.1998 and as a result of that a fresh Mutation No. 1370 was entered in respect of the estate of her father Bagga Singh. While doing so the Revenue Authorities, had according to the petitioner, omitted the names of respondent No. 1 and his brothers from Column No. 5 of the Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 in respect of 16 kanals of land allegedly which had been purchased by them out of the land inherited by the petitioner from her father. According to the respondent No. 1 this omission was not inadvertent and unintentional, and was rather made deliberately by the Revenue Authorities in conspiracy with Surjit Kaur and consequently a complaint under Sections 466, 468 and 471 IPC was filed against Ram Murti, Naib Tehsildar and 2 other revenue officials and Surjit Kaur. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused and on 22.1.2000 framed charge-sheet against them. Hence the present two petitions to challenge the framing of charge and quashing of the proceedings consequent thereto. 2. In the present petitions quashing of the complaint is sought on the grounds that from a bare reading of the complaint no offence is made out against the petitioners. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1 the submission that the omission in the revenue record was due to an inadvertent mistake was denied and it was also submitted that the complaint contained specific allegations disclosing the circumstances in which the offence had been committed by the petitioners. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1 the submission that the omission in the revenue record was due to an inadvertent mistake was denied and it was also submitted that the complaint contained specific allegations disclosing the circumstances in which the offence had been committed by the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 filed a written statement supporting the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. 11374-M of 200 while respondents No. 3 and 4 filed separate petition to challenge the framing of the charge. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available. 4. The main ground on which summoning order and the framing of charge was sought to be assailed was that the omission in relation to 16 kanals of land that had been purchased by Balbir Singh from Surjit Kaur was an inadvertent mistake of respondents No. 2 to 4 and Surjit Kaur had nothing to do with it. It is submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and a bare perusal of the complaint shows that any further proceedings would be futile and tantamount unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and find that the following averments of the complaint : "That accused No. 4 in conspiracy with accused No. 1 to 3 in order to usurp the above said land measuring 16 kanals of the complainant and his brother, got sanctioned mutation No. 1370 dated 12.6.1998 on the basis of some order dated 19.1.1988 in the absence of the complainant and his brothers, in order to harm the interest of the complainant and his brothers and to benefit accused No. 4. No such order had ever come into existence. Accordingly the aforesaid land which was in the ownership and the possession of the complainant and his brothers was mutated in the name of accused No. 4." spell out the ingredients of the offence for which the petitioners have been charged. The Court below has already framed a charge on the basis of the material available before it and relief in the present case is being sought on the assertion that the existing circumstances show no mensrea on the part of the petitioner and her co-accused to defraud her brothers. The Court below has already framed a charge on the basis of the material available before it and relief in the present case is being sought on the assertion that the existing circumstances show no mensrea on the part of the petitioner and her co-accused to defraud her brothers. This question will have to be decided by the trial Court after the submission in support of the rival contentions have been reduced into evidence. A charge which has been framed cannot be quashed by this Court merely on the ground that it is not likely to succeed unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the proces of the court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed as has been held in State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi, 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 517 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held as under :- "The legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie cae of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against them the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial Court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior Court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side would be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases." 6. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases." 6. In view of what has been discussed above, both these petitions are devoid of merits and the same are dismissed.