Sohna Ram vs Inderpal Sharma

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Sohna Ram has come in revision against the order dated July 9, 1992 passed Shri S.K. Goyal, JMIC Fazilka vide which he dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

The brief facts on the basis of which the complaint was filed may be enumerated.

Sohna Ram was the owner of the half share of land measuring 1 kanal 19 marlas entered in Khasra No. 159 as per Jamabandi of 196364 by virtue of purchase from Des Raj son of Balmukand. This entry continued in his favour till the year 197980. Inder Pal Sharma accused I who was the patwari of the Halqa, in order to deceive the petitioner, changed the entry in connivance with Sohan Ram son of Chawa Ram by recording entry in his name as per Khewat No. 199, half share in the Jamabandi for the year 198485. On March 26, 1990 Sohna Ram son of Chawla Ram accused sold that land in favour of complainant''s grandsons accused 4 and 5 and this saledeed was witnessed by accused No. 3.

To prove his allegation, the petitioner made his own statement and examined Sohna Ram, son of Chawal Ram, Harbhajan Lal, Subhash Chander, Harinder Singh and Wazir Singh, Patwari.

The record brought by the petitioner shows that the petitioner himself was the owner of the land. A wrong entry had been recorded by the Patwari in the Jamabandi showing Sohna Ram accused 2 to be the owner and taking advantages of that entry Sohna Ram had made a transfer. The action of the accused persons had deprived the petitioner of his lawful rights. The fact that the land was transferred to complainant''s own grandsons is hardly of any significance. The complaint also could not be dismissed on the basis that the sale deed was effected 21/4 years earlier to the bringing of the complaint. Since the complainant was not a party to the execution of that document, he could lunch execution only after acquiring information and then verifying the fact to be correct. Even if the petitioner had the civil right, it did not debar him from launching the Criminal prosecution. There was sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint. The order of the learned Magistrate is, thus not legally correct.

I hereby accepted the petition and after setting aside that order direct the Magistrate to hold further enquiry. The petition stands disposed of.