Back
2012(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-18643 of 2010
Harcharan Singh & Ors.
v.
Satvinder Satara
{Decided on 03/01/2012}
In the instant case, the only allegations against the petitioners in this regard are that they have illegally incorporated the specific khasra number in the sale-deed and have mentioned that no civil suit is pending nor there is any stay from the court and nothing else--There is not an iota of material, much less cogent, even to suggest remotely that the petitioners were either served or had the knowledge of pendency of the civil suit at the relevant time--Even the perusal of the affidavit (Annexure P-5) would reveal that the complainant has forged the signatures of Harjeet Kaur (defendant No. 6 therein) on the Power of Attorney and in fact none of the defendants was ever served in the civil suit.
Moreover, the complainant in order to prove the criminal offence was required to show that the accused had fraudulent and dishonest intention of forgery and cheating at the time of registration of the sale-deed--The same is miserably missing in the case in hand--In the absence of culpable intention at the relevant time, it cannot possibly be saith that the petitioners have committed any offence, as alleged against them, in view of the provisions of Sections 40, 52, 79 and 80 of the IPC. (Para 16 to 18)
(B) Registration Act, 1908, S.81 & 82--A person can be prosecuted under Section 81/82 of the Registration Act only, if all the essential ingredients contained therein are complete and not otherwise. (Para 16)
(C) Practise & Procedure--Civil & Criminal Proceedings--The matter, which essentially involves the dispute of civil nature cannot legally be allowed to become subject matter of criminal proceedings, which may be resorted to as a short-cut method to execute a non-existent decree.
It is not a matter of dispute that the jurisdiction of civil and criminal courts is entirely different and distinct from each other--The matter which squarely falls within the ambit and jurisdiction of the civil court cannot legally be permitted to be re-agitated in parallel proceedings in the criminal court--As the civil suit is already pending between the parties with regard to the same subject matter, therefore, the complainant cannot legally be again permitted to re-agitate the same very dispute in the grab of criminal prosecution by way of impugned complaint--Otherwise, there will be no end of unwarranted litigation and it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners in this relevant connection. (Para 18)
(D) Registration Act, 1908, S.81 & 82--Joint property--The right of a co-sharer to enjoy the joint land is a civil right--Such a right cannot be jeopardised by other co-sharers for one reason or the other even by bringing criminal complainants--Cannot be taken recourse, to enforce such a civil right. (Para 19)
Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition and emanating from the record is that, petitioners-Harcharan Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Savinder Singh, residents of New Delhi, their brother Pritam Singh and sisters Parkash Kaur and Harjeet Kaur, were the co-owners/co-sharers along with Satvinder Satara son of Daljeet Singh-respondent-complainant(for brevity “the complainant”), Banarsi Lal, Sandeep Kumar and Smt.Nirmal of the joint land in question, measuring 173 Kanals 2 Marla, situated in the village Rajpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. It was claimed that the complainant filed a Civil Suit bearing No.700 dated 27.09.2006, for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners and other co-sharers, from alienating the suit land more than their shares or specific portion out of the land in question. The trial Court vide its order dated 16.10.2006(Annexure P-4) directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and Parkash Kaur and Harjeet Kaur (defendant Nos.5 and 6 therein) were restrained from alienating any specific khasra number, although, the liberty was granted to them to alienate their shares in it. The petitioners were not served in the civil suit. They sold their shares in the suit land to Banarsi Lal, Sandeep Kumar and Smt.Nirmal, vendees, by means of registered sale-deed dated 13.11.2006(Annexure R-1). The relevant portion of which is as under:-
“We, Harcharan Singh, Jagjit Singh and Savinder Singh sons of Harnam Singh son of Narain Singh, residents of 44, Pusa Road, New Delhi; and proprietors of village Rajpur, Sub Tehsil Sadhaura, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar are equal owners of the following land:
Land comprising Khewat No.285, Khatauni No.332, Khasra Nos.6//20/2(1-3), 21/1(3-14), 7//16/1(4-18), 16/2(2-0), 24(7-4), 25(8-0) and 9//3(2-2), 9//4/2(5-16), 5(8-0), 6(7-7), 7(5-14) and 21//1/4(3-6), 2(7-5), 8(0- 1), 9(5-19), 10(8-0), 11/3(4-0), 21//12(7-14), 13/1(1-15), 13/2(2-16), 14(0- 13), 17/3(6-2), 18(8-0), 19/1(4-0), 21//19/2(2-7), 20(7-14), 21/1(0-17), 21/3 (1-13), 22(8-0), 23(8-0), 24/1(2-18), 21//24/3(1-12), 22//6/2(5-0), 7/2(4-10), 14/2(2-2), 15(7-10), 16/1(2-12), 27//3/1(2-18), total Killas 38, total land 173 Kanlas 2 Marla – 3/8th share equivalent to 64 Kanal 19 Marla situated in village Rajpur, H.B. No.152, Sub Tehsil Sadhaura, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 is owned and possessed by us. The aforesaid land is free from all charges and encumbrances. There is neither any stay nor any litigation pending and we have absolute right to sell the aforesaid property. Now we, with out free will and volition and on account of requirement of money for household expenses and for purchase of property, have sold the aforesaid land measuring 64 Kanals 19 Marla along with all the rights of ingress and egress, for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- half of which is Rs.37,50,000/- in favour of Banarsi Lal son of Buta Ram, resident of House No.15, Kashmir Colony, Jagadhri 640/1299th share equivalent to 32 Kanal; and Sandeep Kumar son of Ghanshyam Dass, resident of Jaisico Colony, Jagadhri 226/1299th share equivalente to 11 Kanal 6 Marla; and Smt.Nirmal wife of Satish Kumar, resident of Bawna Road, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar – 433/1299th share equivalent to 21 Kanal 13 Marla and possession of land measuring 64 Kanla 19 Marla comprising Khasra No.6//20/2(1-3), 21/1(3- 14), 7//16/1(4-18), 16/2(2-0), 24(7-4), 25(8-0), 9//3(2-2), 4/2(5-16), 9//5(8- 0), 6(7-7), 7(5-14), 22//7/2(4-10), 14/2(2-2), 16/1(2-9 out of 2-12) which has come to our share and possession in a family partition, has been actually delivered on the spot in favour of the purchasers. Now the purchasers have become owners in possession of the land referred to above. We or any of our legal heirs has no right, ti
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
