IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.07.2025.

Anoop Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

***

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J .

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for setting aside the order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, and the order dated 01.04.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bholath, in FIR No.106 dated 09.05.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kapurthala in Revision Petition No. 54 of 2019, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 01.04.2019 had also been rejected.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the present case was registered against accused Karnail Singh on the basis of complaint moved by complainant Anoop Singh, with the allegations that after the death of mother of the petitioner, respondent No.2 along with his accomplices prepared forged and fabricated Will dated 06.08.2006 and produced the same before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bholath, for getting the mutation sanctioned. After presentation of challan, trial commenced and charges were framed against respondent No.2 on

25.11.2009.

PW4-Chand Lal witness to aforesaid Will, during his examination-in-chief before the Court deposed that respondent No.3- Gurmeet Kaur, who is wife of main accused Karnail Singh (respondent No.2) impersonated herself to be Veer Kaur by appending her thumb impressions on the disputed unregistered Will dated 06.08.2006. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning Gurmeet Kaur as an additional accused. The said application was dismissed by learned trial Court, vide order dated 01.04.2019. The petitioner filed revision petition against the said order, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders passed by learned trial Magistrate as well as Revisional Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law since from the inception of lodging of the complaint, the petitioner levelled allegations with regard to forgery and fabrication of unregistered Will dated 06.08.2006, by main accused Karnail Singh along with his accomplice. There was overwhelming evidence in the form of testimonies of PW4-Chand Lal and PW5-Balbir Singh regarding aforesaid forgery committed by respondent No.3 by impersonating herself to be Veer Kaur, in connivance with main accused respondent No.2-Karnail Singh and furnishing their affidavits before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bholath. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was kept pending even after decision of trial on 09.8.2019, vide which the main accused respondent No.2 was convicted for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 467, 471 of IPC. Despite conviction of respondent No.2, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent No.3 has been dismissed, vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2025. The Courts below also failed to consider the material evidence adduced before the Court i.e. expert opinion given by PW7-Sukhjinder Singh, which corroborated the fact that the thumb impressions upon the Will in dispute was different from standard thumb impressions and rather super imposed in a suspicious manner, which was sufficient to summon Gurpreet Kaur (respondent No.3) as an additional accused, being wife of main accused Karnail Singh (respondent No.2). He argued that non-summoning of Gurmeet Kaur as an additional accused, despite direct de