The need for a thorough assessment of evidence and witness testimony before making a decision on a case involving forgery and property disputes.

G. S. Chahal and j JJ.

1. The petitioner by means of this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr. P. C. seeks the quashing of the FIR No.17 dated 26/11/1976, registered at Police Station City, Hansi for offences u/ss 466; 471 and 420, IPC, as also u/s 120-B IPC, and the charges framed by the Sub Divisional. (J) Magistrate, Hansi for the said offences.

2. The case was registered on the basis of a letter sent by the Tahsildar, Hansi. An inquiry had been held with respect to the complaint filed by Vishan Dass a brother of the petitioner. Kalu Ram, father of the petitioner, had executed a Will dated 9/4/1964 in favour of his wife, Smt. Kako Bai and his three sons namely Dewan Chand, Vishan Dass and, Ved Parkash. Mutation No.2500 was entered on the basis of the Will by Jiwan Dass Patwari. Record had been tempered with respecting this mutation. An entry had been recorded at that back of the Parat Patwar of mutation No.2500 though there was no reference to that document on the Parat Sarkar, Vishan Dass had further alleged that a Will with respect to the residential properties was also in favour of the legatees in the same terms as the agricultural land, but in the forged document, different recitals had been recorded.

3. Sh. R. S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate, the learned counsel urges that mutation No.2500 was entered by the Halqa Patwari on the report of Smt. Kako Bai and the Will was shown to him who entered the mutation on the basis thereof. At the time of attestation of the will, Vishan Dass was present and he had affirmed the correctness of the will. Plot No.280, situated in Model Town, Hissar was owned by the petitioner, but held Benami by his father Kalu Ram. This fact had been admitted by Kalu Ram in his will, Vishan Dass did not accept that position and on 18.9.1974, he filed a suit for partition of this plot and building thereon, as well as another house situated at, Hansi. The petitioner in the written statement in that suit, made a claim about his exclusive ownership of that plot. On 24/11/1975, Vishan Dass had moved an application to the Financial Commissioner, Hissar, complaining that some noting had been factiously made on the Parat Patwar of Mutation No.2500. Thereafter an inquiry was made and a case was registered.

4. The petitioner claims that the copy of the Will had been pasted on the back of mutation No.2499 though it should have been pasted on the back of mutation No.2500 and that obviously was only a mistake. There is no evidence to make out a case against the petitioner, as the Handwriting Expert, Madhuban has not given any definite opinion and further that it is a stale matter.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that no case for quashing at this stage is made out. The case has been registered after due investigation by the Revenue Officers and it had been found that interpolation had been made at the back of Farad Patwar or mutation No.2500. However, in Parat Sarkar, no such note is recorded. Admittedly, Vishan Dass was present at the time of attestation of the mutation and he is a direct witness to the facts and he can prove the same. The handwriting expert has not been able to give a definite opinion about the writing for the reason of lapse of time between the disputed writing and the subsequent writing, but he has still stated that there were points of similarities. The opinion of this witness has to be assessed, along with other evidence that may be led by the parties at the trial. It cannot be successfully urged that there was no case worth trial or that the case had been brought by the Revenue Officers under the influence of Vishan Dass. The fraud Committed, obviously came to light when the petitioner filed his written statement, claiming that in the Will there was a reference to the plot situated at Hissar in which Kalu Ram had admitted the petitioner to be the real owner thereof. Soon thereafter, Vishan Dass had moved the Revenue authorities, complaining of interpolations made