Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs Mohan Singh And Ors on 11 March, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966
CRR-1375-2009 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-1375-2009
Date of Decision:- 11.03.2025
HARJINDER SINGH
......Petitioner
VERSUS
MOHAN SINGH & OTHERS
......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Amicus Curiae
for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Addl. AG, Haryana
for respondent No.3.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present petition has been preferred against the judgment
dated 21.02.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby
the judgment of conviction dated 13/15.11.2007 passed by the SDJM,
Pehowa has been set aside.
2. The present case has been registered on the basis of complaint
Ex.PW7/A, which reads as under:-
“A. That an FIR No.328 dated 18.12.2000 under Section 279, 337,
338, 304-A, of Indian Penal Code, had registered on the statement
of complainant against the accused Mangal Singh, who was
driving truck bearing number of Indian Penal Code read with
Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, for rashly and negligently at
the time of accident, and due to this accident, Kabal Singh son of1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 04:31:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966CRR-1375-2009 #2#
Harjinder Singh and Love Preet Singh son of Palwinder Singh died
at the spot and Shamsher Singh got injuries in this accident and
this information was given by Kashmir Singh son of Virsha Singh,
resident of Pannu Farm Kherishishgaran, to the complainant. The
police investigated the above said case and impounded the truck
No. PB-OBE/8513 in this case.
B. On 23.12.2000 accused No.1 Mohan Singh fraudulently and
dishonestly introducing himself as Mohinder Singh, filed
application for superdari and accused No.1 also filed a false
affidavit in the name of Mohinder Singh in the Court on
25.12.2000 and the Court believing the application and affidavit to
be true released the truck bearing No. PB-08E/8513 to accused
Mohan Singh, on superdari. When the Court summoned superdar
as prosecution witness in case in titled State Versus Mangal Singh,
report of summon was received that Mohinder Singh has expired
since long and then son of superdar Major Singh and Ramji Lal
surety in superdaginama were summoned by the court. When
Ramji Lal came in Court, he stated that he was surety of Mohan
Singh not Mohinder Singh. He is illiterate. He did not know that
Mohan Singh impersonated in the Court as Mohinder Singh. He
had in fact, came to the Court to stand surety for Mangal Singh.
Major Singh also stated that his father Mohinder Singh had
expired on 21.10.98 i.e. prior to superdari. He also stated that he
has sold out the truck to Shri NK Aggarwal after the death of his
father and when the court summoned NK. Aggarwal, he also stated
that he had sold the truck to Mohan Singh accused No.1. From the
statements of above said persons, it has become clear that it was
accused No.1, who cheated by personation the Court and
complainant fraudulently and dishonestly as Mohinder Singh
C. When these facts, came in the knowledge of the Court, it issued
summons of accused No.1 Mohan Singh but when he not appeared
in the Court then warrant of arrest was issued by the court. Then
accused No.1 got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh, and same was allowed.
According to this order, accused No.1 Mohan Singh, submitted his
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the court.
D. On 04.02.2002, accused No.1 submitted his surety bond of Des2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966CRR-1375-2009 #3#
Raj son of Harbans Lal and Anil Kumar son of Prem Nath, both
residents of village Maqsoodhan (Jalandhar) but both the surety
personated by accused No.3 & 4 and both are identified by
accused No.5 wrongly, knowingly, intentionally and assisted the
accused No.1, 3 and 4 who cheated the Court and complainant by
personation. Accused No.3 & 4 also prepared forged documents
for the purpose of cheating and used as genuine these forged
documents. The accused No. 3 & 4 also filed false affidavits in the
court dishonestly regarding property for the purpose of being used
in judicial proceedings as proof. The Court canceled the
superdaginama of Mohan Singh when the abovesaid facts came in
the knowledge of the court and SHO PS Pehowa was directed to
take the truck in his custody.
E. On 04.02.2002, the accused No.2-Jaswinder Kaur wife of
Mohan Singh, resident of Kahan Pur, Tehsil and District
Jalandhar (Punjab) at present Maharastra-Andhra Transport Opp.
Ashirwad Petrol Pump Bhopal again filed an application for
releasing the above said truck No.PB-08E/8513 on superdari and
the court demanded superdaginama of Rs. 10 lacs with two
sureties and Jaswinder Kaur applicant gave two in superdaginama
in which one surety’s name is Des Raj son of Harbans Lal, resident
of Jalandhar, Maqsoodan stood surety of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and
abovesaid truck was released on supedari in the name of
Jaswinder Kaur.
F. When these facts came to know by Darshan Singh son of Shri
Labh Singh, resident of B-LX733/18/2 New Santokh Pura
Jalandhar City (Punjab), he filed an application before the
Tehsildar Jalandhar-11, and then this fact came in the knowledge
of the complainant that Des Raj son of Harbans Lal has no
property, the details of which has been given in the
superdagunama and there is no person in the name of Des Raj son
of Harbans Lal in the given address, actually Ashok Kumar Baseen
son of Shri Kishan Lal Baseen, resident of New Islam Ganj
Jalandhar gave surety on the superdaginama in the name of Des
Raj by way of personation and again cheated the court by
personation.
G. After getting this report from Tehsildar, it is clear that
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966CRR-1375-2009 #4#
Jaswinder Kaur applicant cheated the Court by way of giving false
surety in the superdaginama of the abovesaid truck and cheated
the Court by way of giving false surety in the superdaginama of the
abovesaid truck and cheated the court with the help of accused
No.3 & 4 personating the forged documents. It has also come in
the knowledge of the complainant that Mohan Singh and
Jaswinder Kaur are already declared proclaimed offender by the
court of Shri K.K. Kreer, ACJM, Jalandhar on 14.03.2003 in case
titled State versus Gurjeet Singh, FIR No. 205 dated 28.04.2000.”
3. This complaint was directed to be sent to SHO PS Pehowa for
investigation and registration of case under Section 156(3) of Criminal
Procedure Code, vide order dated 02.12.2003. Resultantly, after due
investigation, the present case was registered against the accused. The matter
was duly investigated. The statements of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
were recorded. On completion of investigation proceedings, the accused
were challaned.
4. Despite efforts the whereabouts of the accused Piara Singh
could not be known as no person of this name was available at the given
address.
5. After taking cognizance, the accused were charge-sheeted under
Sections 209, 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 and 120 of Indian Penal Code, vide
order dated 04.10.2004 whereas accused Mohan Singh and Jaswinder Kaur
were charge-sheeted under Sections 193, 209,419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 06.01.2006,
to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution
examined PW1-Badlu Ram, SI, PW4-Ramchander SI, PW5-Mangal Singh,
PW6-Maya Chand, ASI PW7-Harjinder Singh, PW8-Shri Nand Kishore
Aggarwal, PW9-Smt. Daljit Kaur, PW10-Rajiv Harit, PW11-Niranjan
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966
CRR-1375-2009 #5#
Singh, SI, PW12-Gurmit Singh, PW13-Shri Gurdeep Singh, PW14-Darshan
Singh, PW15-Ramjit Lal, PWs Kuldeep Singh, SI Pawan Kumar and Gurpal
were given up by the APP for State. PW1-Shri Charanjit Singh and Ramji
Lal. Besides this, the prosecution also relied upon documents Ex.PW2/A
affidavit of Ramji Lal, Ex. PW3/A & Ex. PW12/A application and report,
Ex. PW3/B & Ex. PW9A application and report, Ex. PW3/C seizure memo
Ex.PW3/D copy of FIR, Ex.PW5/A A Statement of Mangal Singh,
Ex.PW7/A complaint Ex.PW3/E endorsement, Ex.PW8/B statement of
Nandkishore, Ex.PW10/A statement of Mangal Singh, Ex.PW10/B copy of
application for superdari, Ex.PW10/C superdaginama, Ex.PW1/A surety
bond, Ex.PW10/D affidavit of Mohinder Singh Ex.PW10E copy of order
dated 01.05.2001, Ex.PW10/6 copy of order dated 30.05.01. Ex.PW10/G
statement of Ramji Lal, Ex.PW10/H, copy of statement of Major Singh,
Ex.PW19/J copy of order dated 11.07.01 Ex. PW10/K copy of order dated
11.06.01, Ex.PW10/L copy of order dated 04.12.2001, Ex. PW10/M copy of
order dated 12.12.2001, Ex.PW10/N copy of application for bail,
Ex.PW10/0 copy of affidavit of Mohan Singh, Ex. PW10/P copy of surety
bond with affidavit, Ex.PW10/Q copy of surety bond with affidavit,
Ex.PW10/R copy of application dated 04.2.2002 for superdari, Ex. PW10/S
copy of application dated 21.02.2002, Ex.PW10/T copy of superdaginama,
Ex. PW10/U copy of affidavit of Piara Singh, Ex.PW10/V Jamabandi,
Ex.PW10/X Jamabandi, Ex.PW10/Z again jamabandi. Ex. PW10/ZZ
application for making the valuation report, Ex.PW10/ZZZ application for
making the valuation report.
7. On being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused
denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence.
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966
CRR-1375-2009 #6#
However, no evidence in defence was led by the accused on record.
8. Based on the evidence led, the accused/respondent Nos.1 & 2
came to be convicted and sentenced by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Pehowa vide judgment and order of sentence dated
13/15.11.2007 as under:-
Offence under Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default
Section of payment of
fine
193 IPC SI for 02 years Rs.500/- each —
209 IPC SI for 01 year Rs.500/- each —
419 IPC SI for 01 year Rs.500/- each —
420 IPC SI for 02 years Rs.500/- each —
465 IPC SI for 01 year Rs.500/-each —
467 IPC SI for 03 years Rs.1000/- each —
468 IPC SI for 02 years Rs.1000/- each —
471 IPC SI for 03 years Rs.1000/- each —
120-B SI for 02 months Rs.500/- each —
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
9. The convicted accused preferred an appeal before the Court of
Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The said Court acquitted the accused
vide judgment dated 21.02.2009 on the premise that there was non-
compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C inasmuch as only the Court concerned
could have filed a complaint and the FIR could not have been registered.
10. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
complainant/petitioner.
11. The counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that the
primary reason for the acquittal of the accused is that there was non-
compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as only a complaint was
maintainable at the instance of the Court before whom the offences in
question had been committed. However, this reasoning adopted by the
Lower Appellate Court was fallacious as the documents in question such as
surety bonds, jamabandis and affidavit etc. had been forged outside the
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966
CRR-1375-2009 #7#
Court and produced in the Court and therefore, the bar contained under
Section 195 Cr.P.C. from taking cognizance would not be attracted. Reliance
is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh
Marwah & Another Versus Meenakshi Marwah & another, 2005(2) RCR
(Criminal) 178.
12. On the other hand, the learned Amicus Curiae for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that there is no evidence of forgery of any
document and as such, the present revision petition was liable to be
dismissed.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to
refer to the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the same reads as under:-
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public justice and for offences
relating to documents given in evidence.-(1) No Court shall
take cognizance–
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to
211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is
alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966CRR-1375-2009 #8#
punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476
of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have
been committed in respect of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to
commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-
clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), [except on the complaint in
writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as
that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of
some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.]
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to
which he is administratively subordinate may order the
withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such
order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no
further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the
trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means
a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a
tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or
State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the
purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a
Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to
which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable
decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case
of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal
ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary
original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction
such Civil Court is situate:
Provided that–
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the
Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the
Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be
subordinate;
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966
CRR-1375-2009 #9#
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue
Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate
to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature
of the case or proceeding in connection with which
the offence is alleged to have been committed.”
15. While interpreting the scope of the aforementioned provision,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) held as under:-
“25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the
opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided
and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)
(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted only
when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been
committed with respect to a document after it has been
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court
i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
26. In the present case, the will has been produced in the
Court subsequently. It is nobody’s case that any offence as
enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to
the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of
District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)
(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code would not come into play
and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take
cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed
by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and
calls for no interference.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. A perusal of the aforementioned judgment would establish
beyond doubt that a distinction has been drawn between forgery of
documents committed while they are in custody of the Court i.e. custodia
legis and forgery of documents outside the Court which they are produced in
Court in evidence. In the former case, proceedings under Section 195
Cr.P.C. are to be resorted to inasmuch as the complaint is to be filed by the
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033966
CRR-1375-2009 #10#
Court where the forgery has been committed. However, in the latter case,
where the forgery of documents has taken place outside the Court but the
documents thereafter produced in the Court, an FIR/complaint at the
instance of a private individual is maintainable.
17. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find considerable
merit in the present petition. The judgment dated 21.02.2009 passed by the
Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra acquitting the accused is set aside. The
case is remanded back to the Lower Appellate Court for a fresh adjudication
on merits keeping in view the aforementioned discussion.
18. The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above
terms.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
11.03.2025
Jitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 04:31:38 :::
[ad_1]
Source link