State of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh and Another

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—In case FIR No. 74 dated 6.12.1997 registered at Police Station Gurdaspur under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, came to conclusion that charge is made out against Mohinder Kaur and Faqir Singh. However, respondent Amir Singh and Gurdip Singh were discharged. For framing the charge against Mohinder Singh and Faqir Singh and discharging Amir Singh and Gurdip Singh, following reasoning was given by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur:-

"4. I have given a careful thought to the arguments advanced on behalf of the State and the accused. Accused Gurdip Singh only got the sale deed executed in his favour on the basis of agreement dated 28/10/95 executed by Faqir Singh in his favour. The agreement in dispute dated 19/5/97 was executed much later by Mohinder Kaur. Accused Gurdip Singh had no role to play in the agreement dated 19/5/97. Similarly, accused Amir Singh brother of accused Faqir Singh did not play any role in execution of agreement dated 19/5/97 to cheat the complainant. However, Faqir Singh was aware of the fact that he had already executed agreement dated 28/10/95 in favour of Gurdip Singh. Mohinder Kaur was his wife and before the execution of sale deed on the basis of agreement dated 28/10/95 Faqir Sigh executed sale deed dated 8/1/96 in favour of Mohinder Kaur in order to defeat the rights of accused Gurdip Singh. Mohinder Kaur in turn knowing that her title was derective entered into agreement of sale dated 19/5/97 in favour of the complainant. There is cogent evidence against accused Mohinder Kaur and Faqir Singh. A prima facie case against them is made out u/s 420 and 120B of IPC. Let charge be framed accordingly. Accused Amir Singh and Gurdip Singh are discharged".

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, is unable to state as to what happened in the trial against Mohinder Kaur and Faqir Singh.

Anything observe herein may affect the trial, which ought to have concluded or may have been pending. Suffice it to say, reasoning given by the trial Court suffers from no illegality or infirmity, calling for interference by the revisional Court. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.