Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009
Date of decision:04.09.2009
Madan Mohan ....Petitioner
versus
Surjit Singh and others .....Respondents
Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
Madan Mohan has filed this petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C) for quashing of
judgment dated 10.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula thereby allowing revision
petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 against summoning order
dated 06.01.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula whereby respondent Nos.1 to 3 were
summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in criminal complaint
instituted by the petitioner.
Petitioner’s case is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Field
Kanungo and Patwari respectively prepared demarcation report at
the instance of Harnam Singh accused since deceased and his son-
in-law Surjit Singh respondent No.1 Halqa Patwari and on the basis
of said demarcation report, Harnam Singh filed civil suit for
possession of land allegedly encroached upon by the petitioner. The
Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 -2-
case of the petitioner is that the said demarcation report has been
forged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in conspiracy with respondent
No.1 and Harnam Singh. Learned Trial Magistrate after recording
preliminary evidence ordered summoning of respondent Nos.1 to 3
and Harnam Singh for various offences mentioned above vide order
(Annexure P-1). However, revision petition filed by respondent Nos.
1 to 3 has been allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Panchkula vide impugned judgment dated 10.07.2009 (Annexure P-
2) and consequently summoning order (Annexure P-1) has been set
aside and criminal complaint filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the case file.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision
petition on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be
prosecuted without requisite sanction of appointing authority under
Section 197 Cr.P.C. However, said sanction is not required for
prosecuting respondent Nos.1 to 3 because they are not public
servants who are not removable from their office save by or with the
sanction of the Government. On merits, however, the petitioner has
not made out a case for prosecuting respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the
alleged offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended
that in civil suit filed by Harnam Singh, the aforesaid demarcation has
been disbelieved. However, merely on this basis, it cannot be said
that respondent Nos.1 to 3 committed any offence. The demarcation
report was disbelieved by Civil Court because demarcation was not
Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 -3-
made in accordance with the Rules laid down by the Financial
Commissioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not fix three pacca
points for making the demarcation as required by the Rules.
Consequently, the said demarcation report was not accepted by the
Civil Court. However, it does not mean that the demarcation report
was forged or the respondents committed any offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
date of demarcation has been changed in the demarcation report
from 07.03.2003 to 08.03.2003 by overwriting. However, merely on
this basis, respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be held to be liable for any
offence because mere change of date of demarcation report would
not show that this was done with any dishonest intention.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 changed the date by overwriting the figure
‘8’ over figure ‘7’ in the date. However, they could have originally
written the date ‘8’ if they so wanted or they could also have prepared
a separate report by writing the date correctly. It is very often that
date of previous day is written on documents inadvertently and the
same is corrected when the mistake comes to notice. Mere changing
the date from 07.03.2003 to 08.03.2003 would not show that
respondent Nos.1 to 3 committed the offence of forgery. The
document was prepared by respondent Nos.2 and 3 under their
signatures and therefore, the document does not come within the
purview of ‘forged document’.
In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant
petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.
04.09.2009 ( L. N. MITTAL )
A.Kaundal JUDGE
Crl. Misc. No.M-24694 of 2009 -4-