SURJIT KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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.) 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.