Mukesh K Vashishtha vs Umesh Kumar and Others

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for setting aside order dated

16.12.2013 (Annexure P19) passed by the trial Court declining to summon respondents No. 2 to 9 in the Criminal complaint filed by him as well

as order dated 4.11.2016 (Annexure P21) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner, was

dismissed.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:-

That the complainant along with his uncle namely Trilok Chand got property bearing House Tax No. 4436-A and House Tax No. 4472-4473 in

pursuance of arbitration agreement and the decree passed vide judgment dated 9.2.1999 in Civil Suit No. 137 of 1988 titled ""Surender Kumar

and others vs. Kishori Lal and others."" It is alleged that, complainant was owner of 1/2 share of the ancestral land but the Civil Court, Rewari

passed a decree of 1/3rd share of the total property in favour of complainant. It is further alleged that aggrieved against the said verdict the

complainant had filed RSA No. 325/2008 before Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh titled as ''Mukesh Kumar vs. Trilok

Chand and others and an interim order dated 10.8.2009 was passed restraining the respondents/accused from alienating the suit property till

further orders. It is further alleged that Savitri Devi widow of Trilok Chand, accused No.1 was also party in the above said RSA after the death of

her husband Trilok Chand and she had full knowledge of the abovesaid stay order dated 10.8.2009. It is further alleged that Savitri Devi, accused

No.1, was having an evil eye on the property in dispute; on 6.1.2010, she moved an application with affidavit before Secretary MC Rewari that

the real name of Ram Narayan is Sheo Narayan and property should be changed in her name as mentioned in the Will. It is further averred that on

20.1.2010 she obtained the copy of house tax assessment of property no. 4473 which was in the name of Ram Naryan vide receipt No.1466

dated 20.1.2010 in her name in collusion with Municipal Authorities. It is further alleged that Smt. Savitri Devi, accused No.1 got a sale deed No

6524 dated 25.1.2010 executed in favour of Umesh Kumar, accused no.2 regarding property No.4473 claiming herself to be owner of the said

property on the basis of House tax receipt no. 1466. It is further alleged that Savitri Devi also claimed while executing the sale deed that no

litigation is pending in any court regarding the property under sale deed, whereas, Hon''ble High Court had restrained the alienation of the suit

property till further orders. It is further alleged that after knowledge of execution of sale deed dated 25.1.2010, the complainant inquired from

Tarsem Sharma, the then Sub Registrar, Rewari, accused No.8 regarding the documents on the basis of which Savitri Devi is treated as owner in

possession of the suit land upon which the Sub Registrar informed him vide his letter dated 7.4.2011 in two parts firstly that proof of ownership is

house tax receipt no. 1466 of Municipal Council, Rewari which is in the name of Savitri Devi along with its house tax assessment in the name of

Ram Narayan s/o Ghasi Ram; in the second part it is mentioned that Sarbati d/o Sheo Narain had executed a Will dated 20.10.1987 in favour of

Smt.Savitri Devi, the accused No.1 and Sarbati Devi had surrendered her half share in favour of Savitri Devi. It is further alleged that while

executing the sale deed, Savitri Devi did not claim her ownership on the basis of Will dated 20.10.1987; rather claimed her ownership on the basis

of house tax receipt No.1466 with dishonest intention. It is further alleged that house tax receipt can be obtained by any person from Municipal

Authorities and no meticulous scrutiny or verification of record is done by Municipal Authorities while issuing the certificate. It is further alleged that

she also moved an application with affidavit on 6.1.2010 before the Secretary, Municipal Council, Rewari that real name of Ram Narayan is Sheo

Narayan in order to benefit herself and grab the property of complainant, whereas Ram Narayan and Sheo Narayana were two brothers and Sheo

Narayan died issueless. It is further alleged that Surender Kumar is son of Savitri Devi widow of Trilok Chand. It is further alleged that Savitri Devi

had falsely claimed herself to be owner of the property in dispute and executed the sale deed fraudulently. It is further alleged that Will dated

20.10.1987 is a forged document and no women in the name of Sarbati has ever born in the family of Sheo Narayan. It is further alleged that

Savitri Devi accused No.1 had hatched a conspiracy with Umesh Kumar, accused No.2, Rameshwar Singh son of Nand Lal, Mahabir

Numberdar, Vikram Singh Yadav, Advocate, Om Parkash, Registration Clerk, Sh. Satroop Sharma, Sub Registrar, Rewari and Sh.Tarsem

Sharma, the then Sub Registrar,Rewari at present DRO, Palwal (accused no. 3 to 8) to deprive the complainant of his property by executing the

sale deed no. 6524 dated 25.1.2010. It is further alleged that the matter regarding the sale deed no.6524 dated 25.1.2010 executed merely on a

house tax receipt no. 1466 and alleged will was reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari who conducted an enquiry and found that the said

sale deed is not executed on the basis of Will. It is further alleged that the complainant had moved an application dated 22.8.2012 before the

Superintendent of Police Rewari, but no action was taken. Hence, the present complaint.

After petitioner-complainant led his preliminary evidence, the trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2013 summoned only respondent No.1-Savitri

Devi since deceased. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the revision petition challenging the aforesaid order and praying that the respondents No. 2 to

8 be also summoned in the criminal complaint. The Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 4.11.2016 dismissed the revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the statement of the complainant-Mukesh, who appeared as CW1, it is proved that

he along with co-accused, namely, Trilok Chand has received the property in dispute vide Civil Court judgment passed in Civil Suit No. 137 of

1988 titled as Surender Kumar vs. Krishan Lal. As per the decision of the Arbitrator, he was owner to the extent of the half share in the property.

However, the Civil Court as well as the appellate Court has wrongly held him owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. It is also submitted that the

judgment passed by the Civil Court is now under challenge in RSA No. 325 of 2008 titled as Mukesh Kumar vs. Trilok Chand and Others and

the same is pending in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has led much stress on the fact that during the pendency of this RSA, on

10.8.2009, the respondents (in RSA) were restrained from alienating the suit land till further orders and,therefore, Savitri Devi has alienated the

property in violation of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that accused No.1-Savitri Devi and her legal heirs are

parties in the suit and,therefore, the action of respondent No.1 for moving the application dated 6.1.2010 for change of the name in the house tax

register regarding the property in dispute from Ram Narayan @ Sheo Narayan to the name of Savitri Devi is an illegal action and when the name

of Savitri Devi was corrected subsequent sale deed dated 25.1.2010 executed in favour of accused No.2 in connivance with accused Nos. 2 to 7

is also illegal act and,therefore, all the respondents had committed offence and they are liable to be summoned along with accused No.1-Savitri

Devi under Section 420 IPC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the present petition. Firstly, there is nothing on record to show that

respondents No. 2 to 8 were party to the civil suit or that they had any knowledge about the said order dated 10.8.2009 passed in the aforesaid

RSA No.325 of 2008. Secondly, it is own case of the petitioner that as per the arbitrator award, he was owner to the extent of half

share,whereas, the Civil Court granted a decree of 1/3rd share which was upheld by the appellate Court and the RSA is still pending. Therefore,

there is nothing on record to hold that the petitioner is owner to the extent of half share. As per the averments of the petitioner itself, Savitri Devi

got the property transferred in her name in the Municipal record and, thereafter, she had executed the sale deed dated 25.1.2010 in favour of

accused No.2. Accused Nos. 3 to 5 are the attesting witnesses of the sale deed and are not beneficiary,whereas, accused No.6 is a Clerk in the

Office of Sub Registrar and accused Nos. 7 to 8 are the Sub Registrar. There is no allegations against accused Nos. 3 to 7 that they have acted in

any illegal manner.

I find no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No.1-Savitri Devi was not competent to execute the

sale deed only on the basis of change of her name in the house tax record, forming basis of the execution of the sale deed. Though Savitri Devi has

executed the sale deed despite fact that the aforesaid RSA in which the interim injunction restraining alienation of property was granted is still

pending. however, as the matter of fact Savitri Devi, accused No.1 has since expired and there is no evidence that accused No.2 has any

knowledge about the pendency of the said RSA.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders dated 16.12.2013 and 4.11.2016 passed by the Courts

below warranting interference in the present petition.