Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 213 (PNJ)

Bir Devinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-02-15

M.L.SINGHAL

body2002
Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Through this Crl. Misc. filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, one Bir Devinder Singh has prayed for the quashing of the FIR No. 69 dated 11.9.92 registered at PS Sangat, District Bhatinda under Sections 420/467/471 IPC against Harnek Singh s/o Lal Singh, Darshan Singh s/o Thanna Singh, Harmit Singh and Gurcharan Singh. 2. Facts: There was one Mrs. Nihal Kaur daughter of Jai Kaur widow of Harmit Singh. She was owner of 1/4 share in land measuring 720 kanal 13 marlas and also was owner of land measuring 64 kanal 9 marlas per jamabandi of 1989-80 situated in the area of village Jai Singh Wala. As per Gurcharan Singh son of Hazura Singh and Surjit Kaur wife of Harnek Singh, Nihal Kaur used to put up with them and they used to serve her. She executed Will in their favour on 10.5.92 wherethrough she willed away 5/6 share in favour of Gurcharan Singh and 1/6 share in favour of Smt. Surjit Kaur. As per them, as regards Kuldip Singh and Gurjant Singh sons of Harnek Singh, she mentioned that they never served her and never got her treated and they were putting up in village Killianwali, Tehsil Muktsar and with a view to usurp her land, they got her thumb impression on 1.7.91 on wasiatnama No. 161 which should be deemed to have been cancelled by her (Nihal Kaur) on 15.6.92. Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Kaur filed suit for declaration against Kuldip Singh alias Malkiat Singh and Gurjant Singh sons of Harnek Singh to the effect that they are entitled to inherit Nihal Kaur on the basis of will dated 10.5.92. 3. This suit was contested by Kuldip Singh and Gurjant Singh defendants urging that Smt. Nihal Kaur had executed a valid will in their favour on 1.7.91 which was a registered will and that will dated 10.5.92 being set up by Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Kaur was false. 4. 3. This suit was contested by Kuldip Singh and Gurjant Singh defendants urging that Smt. Nihal Kaur had executed a valid will in their favour on 1.7.91 which was a registered will and that will dated 10.5.92 being set up by Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Kaur was false. 4. Kuldip Singh son of Harnek Singh made an application to DSP, Bhatinda wherethrough he prayed for the registration of case against Harnek Singh son of Lal Singh, Darshan Singh son of Thanna Singh residents of village Jai Singh Wala and Gurcharan Singh son of Hazura Singh resident of village Karamgarh Satran for having forged will dated 10.5.92 which was never executed by Nihal Kaur and which was thumb marked by some other woman. On that application this case was registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a scribe. He scribed will dated 10.5.92 at the instance of one woman who represented herself as Nihal Kaur. He was not aware whether she was real Nihal Kaur or was an impostor. It is submitted on behalf on him that he was not supposed to verify whether the woman being put up before him was Nihal Kaur or she was somebody else and was impersonating. It is submitted that a civil suit has been filed by Kuldip Singh against Gurcharan Singh etc. that the will set up by them is forged and that the fact of the matter is that Nihal Kaur executed will in their favour on 1.7.91 which is a registered will and was her last will. It is submitted that as to which of these wills is genuine, that will be adjudicated in the aforesaid suits. It is further submitted that the petitioner was merely scribe of the unregistered will. He is a licensed deed writer. He scribed that will in the ordinary course of his business. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation of this case, the statements of PWs have been recorded. They confine their accusation against Gurcharan Singh etc. alone and they do not bring him in the net. 6. Since the scribe was not supposed to personally know whether she was real Nihal Kaur on genuine Nihal Kaur, he scribed the will at the instance of that woman who came to him for getting the will scribed. It was attested by Hamir Singh, Darshan Singh member panchayat etc. alone and they do not bring him in the net. 6. Since the scribe was not supposed to personally know whether she was real Nihal Kaur on genuine Nihal Kaur, he scribed the will at the instance of that woman who came to him for getting the will scribed. It was attested by Hamir Singh, Darshan Singh member panchayat etc. It was scribed in favour of Surjit Kaur and Gurcharan Singh. Darshan Singh etc. may have been in league with each other in procuring that will by setting up some impostor in place of Nihal Kaur. 7. For the reasons given above, this Crl. Misc. Petition is allowed. Case FIR No. 69 dated 11.9.92 under sections 420/467/468/471 IPC registered at PS Sangat with consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed qua Bir Devinder Singh petitioner (scribe) only. Petition allowed.