JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J. (Oral): - Jeewan Singh and Jeet Singh, two brothers, were joint owners in possession of the landed property in Tehsil Jubbal in equal shares. Jeet Singh expired in the year 1989, leaving behind his widow Murtu Devi. Even though Jeet Singh was succeeded by his widow Murtu Devi, mutation of inheritance of property, in respect of share of her husband, was attested in favour of Jeewan Singh by the petitioner herein Bhajna nand, who then was Naib Tehsildar. Entry, regarding this mutation, was made by the other petitioner Ram Lal, who then was Patwari. Ram Lal Patwari made an entry to the effect that on the death of Jeet Singh, he is survived only by his brother Jeewan Singh. When this matter came to the notice of the authorities, an enquiry was made which led to filing of the First Information Report with the Police Station, Jubbal. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that Jeet Singh died issueless and mutation of inheritance could only have been attested in favour of his wife and not in favour of his brother Jeewan Singh.

2. When this matter came up before the learned trial Magistrate on 13.5.1999 for trial of the accused, for offences punishable under Sections 167, 218, 219 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it was alleged on behalf of the accused that factum of Jeet Singh having died issueless was verified by the Settlement Naib Tehsildar on 29.6.1989 and Bhajana Nand petitioner attested the mutation only on the basis of verification made by the Settlement Naib Tehsildar and, therefore, no offence can be said to have been committed either by Bhajana Nand or Patwari Ram Lal, who merely made an entry for the attestation of mutation.

3. Learned trial Magistrate in his wisdom, returned the file to the police with a direction, "to ascertain whether mutation in question dated 29.6.1989 was h fact made by the then Naib Tehsildar."

4. On further investigation, a supplementary challan was submitted by the Investigating Officer to the Court.

5. The records show that on further investigation of the case it was found that Gian chand the then Settlement Naib Tehsildar merely noticed that Jeet Singh had expired and did not say anything as to who survived him or whether he died, without leaving behind any legal heir, nor did he say that who would succeed to the property left by Jeet Singh. The petitioners were charged with the responsibility to find out who were the legal heirs of the deceased Jeet Singh. I have seen the copy of the report, which was recorded by the Settlement Patwari. It merely noticed that Jeet Singh son of Ram Singh had expired and mutation of inheritance is required to be attested. Learned trial Magistrate accordingly proceeded to charge the accused for offences noticed above.

6. Mr. Verma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners strenuously urges that no case of cheating is made out, on the basis of record and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioners.

7. Having gone through the record and having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Chandel, learned Advocate General, I am of the view that so far Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, prosecution of the petitioners is misplaced. However, a prima facie, case is made out against the petitioners for other offences. .

8. Section 420 of the Code is a penal provision, which provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Code, which reads : "Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or propert

Click Here to Read the rest of this document