CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Decided on Aug 18,2009.
Dilraj Singh and another -- Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab --Respondent.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan,Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat,AAG,Punjab
Mr.G.S.Sandhu,Advocate,for the complainant.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case
registered vide FIR No.37 dated 17.4.2009 under Sections 420,
465,467,468,471 IPC at Police Station, Lambi.
The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of
District Collector, Muktsar, in which it has been alleged that Navjot Kaur
daughter of Simerjit Kaur daughter of Jamiat Singh @ Kartar Singh has
requested that decision qua mutation No. 2560 of village Khudian Gulab
Singh was announced on 29.2.2009 by Sub Divisional Collector, Malout
in which Simerjit Kaur has been shown as issueless, is an act of fraud on
the part of the accused as the land of Simerjit Kaur has been illegally got
inherited by Bikramajit Singh son of Jamiat Singh, Dilraj Singh son of
Ranjodh Singh son of Jamiat Singh The said pedigree table in which
CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 2
Simerjit Kaur has been shown issueless, has been verified by Hardeep
Singh Harijan Lambardar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Jamiat
Singh had three daughters namely, Gurpal Kaur, Gurjeet Kaur, Simerjit
Kaur and two sons, Bikramjit Singh and Ranjodh Singh. Ranjodh Singh
left behind his widow namely, Basant Kaur and two sons Dilraj Singh and
Sukhraj Singh. During his life time, Jamiat Singh retained 1/3rd share of
joint family property after giving 1/3rd share each to his sons Bikramjit
Singh and Ranjodh Singh. After his death, Jamiat Singh gave 1/3rd share
to his daughter Simerjit Kaur by way of decree and will. The said decree
and will was challenged by sons of said Jamiat Singh, namely Bikramjit
Singh, Dilraj Singh and Sukhraj Singh by way of civil suit which was
decreed, but they lost thereafter up to the Hon’ble Apex Court.
During the pendency of civil litigation, Simerjit Kaur died on
13.10.2006 . On 1.2.2007, mutation of the property of Simerjit Kaur was
sanctioned on the basis of decree and will given by Jamiat Singh but the
said mutation was challenged by way of appeal by Dilraj Singh which was
allowed on 29.2.2008 by Sub Divisional Collector, Malout. In the said
appeal, Navjot Kaur wife of Harvinder Singh was impleaded as a party,
who alleged herself to be the daughter of said Simerjit Kaur. In the
meanwhile, on the basis of the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, District
Collector, Muktsar, allowed to review mutation No.2560 vide his order
dated 24.3.2009. The said order was challenged by Dilraj Singh (petitioner
No.1) by way of appeal before the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur
Division, Ferozepur. It is further submitted that vide order dated 30.4.2009
(Annexure P-3), the order dated 29.2.2009 by which the order of review
CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 3
was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum District Collector, Muktsar,
was stayed.
Apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid FIR and before
coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before
the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Muktsar, which was dismissed on
28.4.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Simerjit
Kaur had left the village somewhere in the year 1985 and had not visited
for once and as such Nambardar of the village has stated in the proceedings
which culminated into order Annexure P-1 that ” he cannot say about
Navjot Kaur as to who she is”. He further submitted that co-accused
namely Sukhraj Singh and Hardip Singh have already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court in CRM-M 13201 of 2009 on 19.5.2009 by
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sham Sunder.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant has filed
CRM No.36673 of 2009 in order to place on record a copy of the order
dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure R-1) and copy of order passed by the learned
Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure
R-2). It is further submitted that appeal filed by Dilraj Singh (petitioner
No.1) under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 against the
order dated 24.3.2009 passed by District Collector, Muktsar vide which
permission has been granted to S.D.M, malout for reviewing the pedigree
table prepared in Mutation No. 2560 of village Khudian Gulab Singh,
Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar in which Smt. Simerjit Kaur d/o Sh.
Jamiat Singh alias Kartar Singh had been shown as issueless, has been
dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur on
CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 4
18.6.2009. Therefore, the stay which was granted vide Annexure P-3 does
not survive. It is also submitted that Bikramjit Singh son of Jamiat Singh,
Dilraj Singh and Sukhraj Singh sons of Ranjodh Singh had filed civil suit
against Simerjit Kaur, Gurpal Kaur, Parminder Kaur, Pushpinder Kaur,
Amar Partap Singh as well as Basant Kaur widow of Ranjodh Singh to the
effect that consent decree suffered by Jamiat Singh in favour of Simerjit
Kaur be declared null and void, which was decreed by the trial Court in
favour of Bikramjit Singh, Dilraj Singh and Sukhraj Singh. The said
decision was challenged by Simerjit Kaur by way of appeal No. RT 330
of 23.10.1997/22.11.1995 which was decided on 12.5.2003 in her favour
holding that Simerjit Kaur is the owner in possession of the suit property
since 5.5.1991 when mutation No. 2105 was attested six months earlier to
the death of deceased Jamiat Singh. The said decision was challenged by
Bikramjit Singh etc.in RSA Nos. 3670 and 3671 of 2003 but the same was
dismissed by this Court on 30.4.2006. Further Special Leave Petition
filed by Bikramjit Singh and others was also dismissed by the Apex
Court on 31.10.2006.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.
It is worthwhile to mention here that co-accused Hardip Singh
in CRM-M 13201 of 2009 made a statement, at the time of sanction of
mutation, that Simerjit Kaur died issueless and attested the pedigree-table.
Similar is the allegation against petitioner No.1 but there is no such
allegation against petitioner No.2. It is also relevant to mention here that the
learned Commissioner while dismissing the appeal (Annexure R-2) has
observed that ‘this order does not directly affect the persons who were
CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 5
parties to the order to be reviewed, as the rights of the parties are yet to be
determined by the SDM, Malout’.
This Court at the time of notice of motion and also granting
interim bail has observed that ‘no case for custodial interrogation appears
to have been made out’.
The fact that the petitioners had arrayed Navjot Kaur as a
respondent shows that no concealment was made whereas Navjot Kaur
despite registered notices and munadi did not appear. As the case is
largely based upon documents and no recovery is to be effected coupled
with the fact that petitioner No.2. is an old man of 68 years having been
born on 04.4.1941 and petitioner No.1 has been attributed same allegations
which are attributed to Hardip Singh, who is already on anticipatory bail
granted by this Court, I deem it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory
bail.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
petitioners have joined the investigation in terms of the order passed by
this Court on 09.6.2009. This fact is admitted by the learned State Counsel.
In view of the above, order dated 09.6.2009 is made absolute.
The petitioners shall,however, keep on joining the investigation as and
when required and shall abide by the provisions of Sections 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
This petition stands disposed of.
Aug 18,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge