AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L.N. Mittal, J.—By this common order, I am disposing of two cases i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-32602 of 2011 filed by accused Lakhbir Singh, Jagsir Singh and their mother Mohinder Kaur and Crl. Misc. No. M-32604 of 2011 filed by accused Jagjit Singh Nambardar, all seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 159 dated 14.09.2011 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mansa City, District Mansa.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
The dispute relates to inheritance of Mukhtiar Singh since deceased. His inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favour of his two sons and widow i.e. petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-32602 of 2011 on the verification of Jagjit singh Nambardar, who is petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-32604 of 2011. Complainant Avtar Kaur alleged that the deceased also had two daughters namely Naseeb Kaur and Ved Kaur @ Vedpal Kaur but their existence was concealed at the time of sanction of inheritance mutation.
Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Amrik Singh stated that all the petitioners of both the cases have since joined investigation pursuant to interim orders of this Court.
The victims of alleged fraud i.e. Naseeb Kaur and Vedpal Kaur have effected compromise with the petitioners and even civil suit filed by the said victims was consigned pursuant to compromise effected in Lok Adalat as their counsel made statement in Lok Adalat for withdrawing the suit. Thus grievance of the victims of the alleged fraud has been redressed. The said victims are real sisters of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and daughters of petitioner No. 3 of Crl. Misc. No. M-32602 of 2011.
Learned counsel for the complainant contended that petitioner Jagjit Singh who is Nambardar, misconducted in performance of his duty by verifying wrong pedigree table of Mukhtiar Singh omitting his two daughters. However since the said two daughters of Mukhtiar Singh have effected compromise, the petitioners of both the cases deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the cases, both the petitions are allowed. Interim orders dated 27.10.2011 are made absolute.