AMAR DUTT,J - (1.) RAJINDER Parkash and another through this petition seek to challenge the order dated 17.10.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala by which the directions issued by the Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala for the filing of a complaint under Sections 467, 468, 473, 193, 476 and 120-B IPC against the respondents were set aside.
(2.) THE facts necessitating the filing of an application under Section 340 Cr.PC against the respondents are that one Naina Devi wife of Laxmi Narain of Barnala was the owner of the land measuring 17 kanals comprised in Khasra Nos. 60//6/7-18, 15/7-15, 16/1-7 situated in village Sanghero as per the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1976-77. Naina Devi had executed a registered Will in favour of her sons Rajinder Parkash, Pawan Kumar and Surinder Parkash on 19.10.1978. She died on 27.5.1981 and after her death, her sons became owners of the land in dispute. The respondents who have no connection with Naina Devi had, in order to grab the land owned and belonging to her, fabricated a Will in favour of the Mal Singh, respondent No. 1 claiming that the deceased was his foster sister (Dharam Behan). The Will was attested by respondents No. 2 to 4. On 9.10.1981, claiming that he had become owner on the basis of the Will dated 15.4.1981, Mal Singh filed a suit in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Barnala against the Surinder Parkash and Laxmi Narain. The Will was produced by Mal Singh and the respondents made statements to prove the same. The suit was dismissed on 8.3.1984 after holding that the Will Ex.P.1 was a forged document. Mal Singh filed an appeal which was dismissed on 3.8.1984 and the order of the trial Court regarding Ex.P.1 being forged document was upheld. This dismissal occasioned the filing of an application under Section 340 Cr.PC before the Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala for filing of a complaint against the respondents. The learned trial Court accepted the application and passed the orders directing that a complaint be drafted and presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur for entrustment to a competent court. The respondents went up in appeal. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala, accepted the appeal holding that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.PC had no application to the facts of the case as "It is open to little doubt that the Will which was found to the have been forged vide the civil Court's judgment dated March 8, 1988 (ibid) had been forged prior to the institution of the Civil Suit No. 472 (ibid) in the court at Barnala". Hence, this revision.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent.;