Amrit Pal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant Amrit Pal Singh has challenged the filing of chargesheet No. 185 of 2006 and the cognizance order passed thereupon against him for the offence of Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code, pertaining to crime No. 152 of 2006, P.S. Roorkee, District Haridwar.

The backgrounds facts of the entire episode are that Saudagar Singh and Sajjan Singh were both brothers. They purchased the land in dispute wherein Saudagar Singh had the 1/3rd share and Sajjan Singh had 2/3rd share. One Sri Gurmeet Singh is the son of Sajjan Singh, i.e. he is nephew of Saudagar Singh. Saudagar Singh on dated 12.3.1996 executed a sale deed in favour of Gurmeet Singh (his nephew) for his share, as stated above in the land. Applicant- Amrit Pal Singh was the witness of that sale deed.

On the basis of that deed, mutation took place in the name of Gurmeet Singh on 7.6.1996. That mutation was objected by Saudagar Singh (vendor of the deed) in the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The appeal was allowed and the mutation proceedings were remitted back to the court of Consolidation Officer for decision afresh.

In the court of consolidation officer, when the matter was taken up, someone named Pradeep Singh Punchhir filed the objections on dated 24.2.2001 at the strength of power of attorney on behalf of Smt. Jasveer Kaur. It appears that by this time, probably Saudagar Singh was No. more, so Sri Pradeep Singh, representing himself as the power of attorney of Smt. Jasveer Kaur, filed these objections. As the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer advanced, Sri Pradeep Singh disappeared from the scene and the objections were not given effect to. No. evidence was led in support of the objections, with the result the land was again ordered to be mutated in the name of Sri Gurmeet Singh.

On the strength of the name of Sri Gurmeet Singh having been mutated in the revenue records, he executed the sale deed dated 7.12.2005 to one Sri Dinesh Sharma.

When Sri Dinesh Sharma endavoured to take the disputed land in his possession, Smt. Jasveer Kaur objected and then she came to know what has happened with her land. She ran from pillar to post to lodge an F.I.R. but in vain. So she moved an application u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of Magistrate concerned and got lodged an FIR on 31.5.2006 against the accused persons. After investigation, the impugned chargesheet has been submitted whereupon the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. It is this chargesheet and the order of cognizance which is under challenge through this application.

It has been argued on behalf of learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant-Amrit Pal Singh is only the witness of the initial sale deed dated 12.3.1996. For this count he cannot be prima faciedly held guilty by submitting this chargesheet because the execution of sale deed by impersonation, if any, has been given effect to by Sri Gurmeet Singh. It has also been pleaded that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the sale deed while the learned brief holder has argued that had Amrit Pal Singh (witness of the sale deed) not identified the impersonated person, as the identity of Sri Saudagar Singh, then this sale deed could not have been executed at all. Meaning thereby the liability of applicant Amrit Pal Singh is No. less. He is equally liable in getting this forged sale deed executed. This Court is also of the view that at this stage Amrit Pal Singh, may he be a witness, cannot be absolved from the liability and thus liable to be tried in the court of competent jurisdiction.

So, this petition has No. force and liable to be dismissed. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 14.5.2007 is vacated.