IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 Date of Uploading : 21.02.2026 Harwinder Pal Singh …... Petitioner V/s Sarup Singh and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the JMIC, Amritsar and order dated 19.10.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar wherein both the Courts below dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents has apprised the Court that respondent No.1-Sarup Singh has expired on

27.10.2025.

In view of the above, the proceedings qua respondent No.1-

Sarup Singh stand abated.

3. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint, the accused- respondents (hereinafter known as the respondents) forged and fabricated a Will of Beant Singh (stated to have expired on 09.06.1984) son of Sunder Singh dated 08.11.1983 to grab the share of the petitioner-complainant (hereinafter to be known as ‘the petitioner’) in the land and property.

4. Based on the evidence led, the complaint came to be dismissed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide judgment dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-5). The relevant extract thereof reads as under:-

4. After hearing counsel for the complainant and after going through the documents placed on the file and the evidence of preliminary evidence of the complainant, I am of the considered view that for summoning of persons as accused in complaint, onus on the complainant to establish his prima facie case on file. From entire preliminary evidence, it comes out that as per order of the ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) in Para no.25 of the judgment dated 19.10.09, it is clearly alleged that in para of this judgment from the above discussion, it can be observed that the Will Ex.PA is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and no where in this judgment the ld. Magistrate held that the Will is forged and fabricated document and the same in appeal of the said judgment dt. 29.10.10 in this ld. ADJ did not declare the said Will is forged one.

5. On the other hand, attesting witness of the said Will PW3 Sujinder Singh that he and Jagir Singh whose their signatures on the said Will. He is admitted his signatures. In preliminary evidence complainant did not examine any attesting of the alleged Will who denied to identify his signature on the alleged Will.

6. In view of my above said discussion, there is no prima facie ground to made out to summon the accused in this case. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room.

5. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.10.2016 (Annexure P-7). The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under:-

10. The complaint was filed by revisionist/petitioner under sections 420,466,467,468,471,474/34 of IPC for summoning the accused/respondents on the grounds that his grandfather Beant Singh was owner of house no.5019/38, Habibpura, Gali no.1, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar and Beant Singh has not executed any Will but a Will dated 8.11.1983 was forged by accused, whereas Beant Singh has not executed any Will and moreover in the mutation proceedings dead persons have been made party, who got mutation sanctioned in their favour on the basis of fake Will by the accused before Assistant Collector Ist Grade. During the pendency of that complaint preliminary evidence was led by the complainant by examining Jasbir Singh Clerk SOT Office, Tarn Taran, who has brought record of mutation proceedings no.1915 and further CW2 Sunder Singh Ha