Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1933 (PNJ)

Ujaggar Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-07-02

RAJAN GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT Rajan Gupta, J.: (Oral):-This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to take legal action against respondents No.3 to 5 for demolishing certain demarcation marks fixed by the local Tehsildar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that demarcation of the land was conducted on 18.12.2009 and certain marks were affixed in order to highlight the partition of land. According to learned counsel, marks were illegally removed by respondents No.3 to 5. According to him, legal action is required to be taken against the said respondents. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is inexplicable as to how the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to respondent No.2 to take legal action against private respondents for alleged removal of demarcation marks, is maintainable. In case of removal of any marks/signs showing demarcation of partition of land, petitioner was entitled to bring it to the notice of the concerned authority or to take action in accordance with law. For registration of a criminal case, effective remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as laid down by the apex court in case reported as Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, [2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3910] : 2008(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 392. No case for interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this court is made out. The petition appears to be totally frivolous. The same is, therefore, dismissed with Rs.2,000/- as costs, to be remitted to the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab. -------------- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh Crl.M.No.18547-M of 2010(O&M) Avtar Singh v. Sat Pal Singh & Ors. {Decided on 05/07/2010} For the Petitioner: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate. The same is, therefore, dismissed with Rs.2,000/- as costs, to be remitted to the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab. -------------- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh Crl.M.No.18547-M of 2010(O&M) Avtar Singh v. Sat Pal Singh & Ors. {Decided on 05/07/2010} For the Petitioner: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 463, 468, 120 B/34--Cheating--Permission of hand writing expert for comparison of signatures--Hand writing expert instead of comparing specimen signatures of the accused with copy of second sale deed had compared same with certified copy of said sale deed--Petitioner-complainant moved another application reiterating his earlier request--Complainant engaged handwriting expert and supplied copy of sale deed from which comparison was to be made--No objection to report--After his examination-in-chief, he was also cross examined and thereafter his evidence was closed--Further no objection was raised by complainant or his counsel while examining handwriting expert--Complainant-petitioner has availed of number of opportunities to examine hand-writing expert as also he is unnecessarily delaying matter, which pertains to year 1996--Even otherwise complainant-petitioner has not filed any suit challenging sale deed and has also led no other evidence to show that sale deed has been forged--No ground, for interference. (Para 3 & 4) JUDGMENT Jaswant Singh, J. :- Crl.M.No.32776 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.18547-M of 2010 Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 17.5.2010 (P.3) passed by the ld. JMIC, Jalandhar whereby application dated 10.5.2010 (P.2) filed by the petitioner complainant for permitting the hand-writing expert for comparison of the signatures of accused-respondent No.1 with the second copy of the sale deed dated 28.7.1989 alleged to have been forged by respondent Nos.1 to 3- accused has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner Avtar Singh and respondent No.1 Satpal Singh are brothers. A complaint was filed by the petitioner on 10.4.1996 under Sections 420/463/468/120-B/34 IPC against respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the ground that they have conspired together and respondent No.1-Satpal Singh had fraudulently got registered a sale deed from the father of the petitioner, namely, Dan Singh after two years of his death. A complaint was filed by the petitioner on 10.4.1996 under Sections 420/463/468/120-B/34 IPC against respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the ground that they have conspired together and respondent No.1-Satpal Singh had fraudulently got registered a sale deed from the father of the petitioner, namely, Dan Singh after two years of his death. On earlier occasions, petitioner-complainant had moved an application for obtaining the signatures of respondent No.1-accused Satpal Singh and respondent No.3-Roshan Lal for comparing the same with second copy of the alleged forged sale deed dated 28.7.1989, as the original was in possession of Satpal. Application was dismissed by the ld. JMIC, Jalandhar vide order dated 12.5.2007. Petitioner filed a revision before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.1.2009 (P.1) and order dated 12.5.2007 was set aside primarily on the basis that the examination of the forged sale deed was a basic document on which the petitioner-complainant was relying and such comparison was necessary for just and fair disposal of the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner-complainant filed an application on 20.5.2009 before the ld. Trial Court for permitting Fateh Chand Sharma handwriting expert to take signatures of the accused Satpal Singh and Roshan Singh for comparing the same with the second copy of the sale deed and the same was allowed by the court. Accordingly, Fateh Chand Sharma took the photograph of the signatures of Satpal Singh and Roshan Singh in the presence of the petitioner-complainant and thereafter submitted his report dated 4.6.2009 after comparing it with the copy of the sale deed supplied by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant examined Fateh Chand Sharma as CW5 wherein he deposed that he had compared the questioned signatures of the accused persons present on the certified copy of the sale deed and he has seen the original sale deed produced by the Clerk of the Tehsil Office, Jalandhar. Report dated 4.6.2009 was tendered in evidence as Ex.CW5/B and that of his examination-in-chief as CW5/C. Said witness was also cross examined at length by the ld. Defence counsel and thereafter the complainant closed his evidence and the case was adjourned for recording the statement of the accused. 3. Report dated 4.6.2009 was tendered in evidence as Ex.CW5/B and that of his examination-in-chief as CW5/C. Said witness was also cross examined at length by the ld. Defence counsel and thereafter the complainant closed his evidence and the case was adjourned for recording the statement of the accused. 3. It is, at this stage, petitioner-complainant realized that the handwriting expert instead of comparing the specimen signatures of the accused with the copy of the second sale deed dated 28.7.1989 had compared the same with the certified copy of the said sale deed and, therefore moved another application dated 10.5.2010 (P.2) reiterating his earlier request. Ld. Trial Court dismissed the same, hence the present petition. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this court finds no merit in this petition. Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that it was the complainant, who had engaged the handwriting expert and supplied the copy of the sale deed from which comparison was to be made. No objection to the report Ex.CW5 was made. After his examination-in-chief, he was also cross examined and thereafter his evidence was closed. Further no objection was raised by the complainant or his counsel while examining handwriting expert Fateh Chand Sharma as CW5/C. This Court is in agreement that the complainant-petitioner has availed of number of opportunities to examine the hand-writing expert as also he is unnecessarily delaying the matter, which pertains to year 1996. Even otherwise, at the time of arguments, ld. Counsel submitted that the complainant-petitioner has not filed any suit challenging the sale deed and has also led no other evidence to show that the sale deed has been forged. No ground, which may warrant interference is made out. Dismissed. ------------