Manjula Mittal vs Surta Ram and others

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of Order dated 17.02.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal and the Order dated 09.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal to the extent, vide which, the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have not been summoned.

It was contended that the petitioner had filed a complaint for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents. The trial Court summoned accused No. 1 vide Summoning Order dated 17.02.2010. However, no Summoning Order was passed against rest of the respondents. The petitioner had filed the revision petition which was dismissed vide Order dated 09.11.2011.

While arguing for setting aside the impugned Order, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the Courts below had wrongly held that the petitioner had failed to establish that the actual possession was delivered to the petitioner as in the agreement itself, it was written that the actual physical possession stood delivered to the petitioner. The fraud is writ large because in the alleged Sale Deed Ex. CW1/K, Surta accused further mentioned the delivery of possession in the sale deed to rest of the accused. The aforesaid Sale Deed was a collusive affair because respondent No. 2-Mohan Lal is none-else but the grand son of Surta who is witness to agreement to Annexure P-4. Surta allegedly sold the land to Rishi Pal, Ashok Kumar and Satish, all sons of Zile Singh.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case titled as Panchayat Mohalla Sudan Ludhiana Dharamshala vs. State of Punjab and others reported as 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 391, wherein, it is held that if Civil litigation is already pending, Criminal proceedings in the same matter is also competent if offence is made out. Both Civil and Criminal remedies can be pursued at the same time.

Reliance has further been placed on the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Iman & Anr. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) & Anr. reported as 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 520, wherein, it is held that the civil proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously.

Heard.

The allegations in the complaint are that the petitioner had entered into Agreement to Sell with accused No. 1-Surta Ram and his grand son-Mohan Lal i.e. accused No. 2. However, the accused No. 1 did not turn up on the date of Sale Deed i.e. on 15.04.2007 and on an enquiry, she got to know that that there was a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the State Bank of Patiala in the name of Surta Ram and there was a specific entry regarding this loan in the revenue record but Surta Ram had not disclosed the same to the petitioner and that Surta Ram-accused No. 1 tried to interfere in the possession of the petitioner which had been handed over to her. It further came to notice that the Sale Deed had been executed by Accused No. 1-Surta Ram with accused Nos. 3 to 5.

There is no doubt with the proposition of law laid down in the judgments titled as Panchayat Mohalla Sudan Ludhiana Dharamshala S (supra) and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Iman & Anr. (supra). However, the same are not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the present case, the Courts below have refused to summon respondents No. 2 to 5 not on the ground that it is a civil dispute but on the ground that the offence is not made out against them from the perusal of the complaint and the evidence produced before it.

It is evident from the perusal of the complaint that the allegations, if at all, are against Surta Ram who alone had taken a loan from the State Bank of Patiala and thus, the allegation of alleged forged jamabandi cannot be fastened upon accused No. 2 just because he is the grandson of accused No. 1.

Moreover, the allegation of entering into Sale Deed is also against Accused No. 1. There is nothing on record to show that respondents No. 3 to 5 had knowledge of the Agreement to Sell. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the two orders passed by the Courts below.

The present petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. Revision against the Order dated 17.02.2010 has been dismissed vide Order dated 09.11.2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. No revision is maintainable u/s 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. The present petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C is nothing but a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt the petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C can be entertained, in case, there is miscarriage of justice. In the present case, there is nothing which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that injustice has been caused.

Thus, the present petition is dismissed both on the ground of maintainability and on merits.