The court affirmed that a petitioner lacks locus standi in criminal matters and that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence under IPC.

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 15.11.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in Cr.MA No. 129 of 2022, titled Om Chand Vs. Bipin Singh and others, vide which the prayer to send the application to the police for registration of FIR was declined. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for the registration of the FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). It was asserted that accused No.1 Vipin Singh filed an application before Deputy Commissioner, Mandi under Section 14 of the National Trust Act and became the guardian of Prem Singh and Titu Ram. Titu Ram and Prem Singh were deaf and dumb. He filed a civil suit No. 142 of 2015, titled Vipin Singh Vs. General Public and became the guardian of Prem Singh and Titu Ram to maintain and look after their property. Titu Ram died on 29.11.2019 leaving behind his property which was to be inherited by his brother Prem Singh. The accused got attested Mutation No. 604 in Village Banji Mohal and mutation No. 787 in Mohin Mohal regarding the immovable property of Titu Ram. Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade attested the mutation based on the Will stated to have been written by Kashmir Singh and witnessed by Ramesh Chand and Roshan Lal. The property was transferred in the name of Vipin Singh being the beneficiary of the Will. The deceased Titu Ram was unable to execute the Will due to his medical condition. Legal heirs were not summoned. Vipin Singh sold the land vide Sale Deed No. 337 of 2021, dated 15.7.2021 to Virender Kumar. The complainant filed the complaint before the police but no action was taken. Hence an application was filed before the Court to refer the matter to the police for registration of the FIR.

3. Learned Trial Court held that the complainant had no locus standi to file the application. A decree was passed by the competent Court and mutation was attested by competent authority. These allegations in the complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence. No sanction was obtained to prosecute accused No.2, 6 and 7. Hence the application was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the relevant material. It was wrongly held that the petitioner/complainant had no locus standi. The concept of locus standi does not apply to criminal cases and any person can set the criminal law into motion. Accused No.1 was wrongly appointed as legal guardian. The Will of Titu Ram was forged. It was wrongly held that the allegations in the application do not constitute the commission of cognizable offence. The offences of cheating and forgery of the documents do not require sanction. The order of mutation was passed without summoning the legal heirs. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required with it.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. even though the remedy of revision is available to the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan , (2016) 16 SCC 30 : (2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 801: 2016 SCC OnLine SC 905 that the High Court can exercise extraordinary ju