JAI SINGH SEKHON, J. - (1.) IN para No. 2 of the complaint Annexure P-1 Baldev Singh, complainant, has alleged as under : "That all the accused are fully aware of the fact that Sh. Sunder Singh had died long ago and that the complainant and Lachhman Singh are in the possession as owners of the mortgaged land. They all joined hands and conspired with each other with common intention of depriving the complainant of his valuable rights in the aforesaid land. They forged a receipt dated 15-12-8 purported to have been executed by the deceased Sunder Singh for payment of the mortgage amount to him. They presented this receipt to the Revenue officials, got mutation of redemption entered on the basis of this receipt and finally got sanctioned the same on 13-11-86 in the absence of the complainant secretly and collusively. The complainant come to know after about one month when the accused Nos. 1 to 3 (recorded as mortgagors) began threatening to interfere in his possession and the complainant made enquiry about all and came to know about the forgery and fabrication male by the accused Nos. I to 3 with the help of accused No. 4 who also identified same person as Sunder Singh (deceased), the alleged mortgagor. The accused have thus committed the offence of cheating by preparing and forging the receipt and using the same as forged document to deprive the complainant from ownership and possession of the aforesaid land by producing the forged receipt for the purposes of redemption. They all have committed an offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code."
(2.) THE trial Court after recording the statements of the witnesses framed the charges under Sections 419, 471, 467 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). Jagdish Singh petitioner filed the present petition for quashment of the charge against him on the ground that his name never figured in connection with the forgery of receipt allegedly executed by Sunder Singh and that the simple act on his part of identifying Baldev Singh complainant and Lachhman Singh at the time of sanctioning of mutation before the Assistant Collector would not amount to offence under Section 419 of the Cole, but only under Section 416 of the Code. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record In view of the specific allegation of the complainant that all the accused including the present petitioner Jagdish Singh had forged the receipt of payment of mortgage money to Sunder Singh after the letter's death in connivance with each other it cannot be said at this stage that no case for offences under sections 467/471 read with section 34 of the Code and 419 of the Code is made out even if the entire allegations of the complainant are taken to be true.
(3.) THE mere factum that Balwant Singh and Mohinder Singh accused were discharged and that against them there were similar allegations, is of no consequence because these two accused persons have never appeared before the Assistant Collector while getting the mutation sanctioned on the basis of alleged forged receipt whereas the conduct of Shanker Dass and Jagdish Singh, petitioners, in appearing before the Assistant Collector and getting the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the above-referred receipt provides an oblique indication of Jagdish Singh being in conspiracy with his co-accused Shankar Dass in forging the above referred receipt.;