Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Rajinder Kumar
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25956 of 2002,
Decided On : JANUARY 4, 2002
Anticipatory Bail - Land Dispute - Indian Penal Code, Sections 419/420/463/467/468/471/471-A/120-B - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code related to fraud, forgery, and conspiracy, and their application in the context of a land dispute involving multiple power of attorneys, wills, and mutations.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute where multiple power of attorneys, wills, and mutations were used to transfer ownership of the land. The accused were alleged to have engaged in fraud, forgery, and conspiracy to grab the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had engaged in fraudulent activities, including fabricating unregistered wills and executing forged sale deeds, leading to a land scam. The court also noted the role of the accused patwari in entering mutations without notice to the legal heirs of the landowner.
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the power of attorneys and wills, the role of the accused in fabricating documents, and the failure to give notice to legal heirs during mutations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the discrepancies in signatures, false affidavits, and the failure to follow legal procedures in mutations to establish the fraudulent activities of the accused.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail was refused to the accused, and the criminal misc. petitions were dismissed.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. Through criminal Mis. Petition No.25956-M of 2001 Rajinder Kumar-petitioner has prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to him and through criminal misc. Petition No.23064-M of 2001, Jaswinder Singh Petitioner has prayed for the grant of anticipatoiy bail to him in case FIR No. 126 dated 21.5.2001 registered under Sections 419/420/463/467/468/471/471-A/120-B of the Indian Penal Code at PS Division No. 4, Jalandhar.
2. By means of this order, both these criminal misc. petitions shall be disposed of. Facts:-
3. The prosecution case in brief is that Jaswant Singh is the only son of Sardar Ajit Singh who was owner of land measuring 41 kanals 11 marlas and 78 sq. feet in the revenue estate of village Kingra. He died on 4.2.1998 Ajit Singh was resident of village Kingra. During his life time in the year, 1996, Ajit Singh had given two general power of attorney to S. Atam Parkash Singh s/o Aya Singh resident of Jalandhar authorising him to sell his land situated in village Kingra. S. Atam Parkash Singh did not sell that land during the life time of Ajit Singh. On 29.07.1995 Ajit Singh had executed a registered will in favour of his son Jaswant Singh regarding his whole movable and immovable property. On 18.03.1998, i.e., after the death of Ajit Singh, Jaswant Singh got mutation entered on the basis of said will at No.11016 with Rajinder Kumar Halwa Patwari. He (Jaswant Singh) became absolute heir of the whole of the property of his father. Rajinder Kumar Patwari, did not get mutation entered in his favour. Jaswant Singh requested him many times to get the mutation entered and mutate the property in his name but with the intention to grab their property, Rajinder Kumar Patwari, in connivance with S. Atam Parkash Singh on the basis of General Power of Attorneys which had been given by Ajit Singh in his life time to him (S. Atam Parkash Singh) got executed special power of attorney in favour of Jaswinder Singh s/o Natha Singh from Atam Parkash Singh. On the basis of that special power of attorney, Jaswinder Singh executed two sale deeds, one with regard to 4 kanals 8 marlas in favour of Bimla Kapur wife of late Sh. B.S. Kapur r/o A-92 and the other with regard to 4 kanals 8 marlas in favour of R.S. Ohri son of Natha Singh and Vipan Ohri s/o R.S. Ohri. They got the mutation sanctioned on the basis of those sale deeds from Rajinder Kumar Patwari,by cancelling the mutation No. 11016 entered on the basis of that will. Power of attorney executed by his father Ajit Singh in favour of S. Atam Parkash Singh could not remain in force after the death of Ajit Singh which took place on 4.2.1998. After the death of Ajit Singh, Anil Chopra in connivance with Gursharan Singh, Baldev Singh- the alleged witnesses of the un-registered will dated 17.3.1997 showing Jaswant Singh son of Ajit Singh, Baldev Singh and Gursharan Singh as the attesting witnesses of the same. Accused Rajinder Kumar again entered mutation No. 11942 of 13.9.1999 with regard to the inheritance of said Ajit Singh on the basis of the un-registered will and mutation was sanctioned in favour of Anil Chopra on 29.9.1999, Jaswant Singh, on the basis of registered will in his favour requested Rajinder Kumar Patwari, to obtain sanction of mutation in his name. In this regard he submitted application to Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar who sent the same to Rajinder Kumar through post. Rajinder Kumar Patwari in connivance with Anil Chopra, Atma Parkash Singh and Jaswinder Singh grabbed his property and caused him loss and did not entertain the application which had been given to Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar for sanction of the mutation. Rajinder Kumar Patwari after conniving with Anil Chopra son of Ram Chander hatched conspiracy on 17.3.1997 and got a forged Will from Ajit Singh which was got written by Rakesh Kumar Sharma Deed Writer, Jalandhar in favour of Anil Chopra and after putting photo of Ajit Singh and by putting some other person in his place put forged
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
