IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved On: 21.11.2025

Date of Decision:18.12.2025

Uploaded On: 19.12.2025

Jhabar and others .....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

*****

Present: - Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate and

Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

Mr. Aniket Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. The instant Petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for seeking quashing of FIR No. 63 dated l5.03.2022 registered under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at P.S. Nangal Chaudhary, District

Mahendergarh alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on an application given by the complainant Jagdish, son of Sultan Singh, resident of village Nangal Dargu, Tehsil Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh, who stated that he is a co-sharer in the estate of Ganpat son of Gobinda (since deceased). The deceased Ganpat Ram was survived by three daughters namely Mishrali, Manohari Devi and Gyarsi and two sons, Mehru and Jhabar. Mishrali was married to Moola Ram of village Kutharia. Manohari Devi was first married to Chitter of village Mehmadpur, Rajasthan, and after his demise, contracted a second marriage with Chandgi Ram, with whom she has two sons and presently resides in Ward No. 4, Bansoor, District Alwar. Gyarsi Devi was married to the real brother of Chitter. The applicant maintains that Manohari Devi is alive, a fact supported by a certificate dated 31.01.2022 issued by the Municipal Council, Bansoor. According to the complainant, the accused persons, acting in collusion and with a common intention, fraudulently procured mutation No. 2222 dated 11.12.2012 by falsely declaring Manohari Devi as deceased, with the dishonest intention of securing wrongful gain for themselves and causing corresponding loss to other co-sharers. It is alleged that Mehru, Jhabar, Mishrali and Gyarsi had succession entered in their favour on the basis of such misrepresentation. It is also alleged that accused No. 11, Mahender Singh, the then Patwari, knowingly facilitated and sanctioned the fraudulent mutation, affixing his signature to mutation No. 2222 with the intent to support the illegal acts of the other accused and to prejudice the rights of lawful co-sharers. The complainant stated that since Manohari Devi is alive and has children of her own, no mutation on the basis of her alleged death could legally have been entered. He further alleges that Mishrali Devi executed a Will in favour of the sons of Jhabar and Mehru, although they were entitled only to a 1/10th share each, later revised to 1/8th, and that the beneficiaries have thereby taken possession of land far exceeding their lawful entitlement through fraudulent means. Thus, the complainant submitted that despite knowing that Manohari Devi was alive, the accused persons conspired to secure mutation No. 2222 dated 11.12.2012 and, in doing so, committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On these allegations, the applicant sought registration of an FIR against all accused persons and prayed for strict legal action to be initiated against them.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that both the respondent No. 3-Manohari Devi and all the accused persons (petitioners herein) trace their lineage to a common ancestor. As per the jamabandi, out of a total holding of 78 kanals and 5 marlas, the petitioners or their immediate predecessors-in-interest were owners of half share, i.e., 39 kanals and 2.5 marlas. It is submitted that a proper appreciation of the pedigree table and the succession line undisputedly establishes that the complainant-respondent No.2, Jagdish, has no concern whatsoever with the share of his uncle (tau) Ganpat, which devolved exclusively up