← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/9619/2016dismissed

Ranjit Singh & ORS v. State Of Punjab

2016-04-21Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

CRM M-9619 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM M-9619 of 2016 Date of decision : 21.04.2016 Ranjit Singh & ors.

....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJAN GUPTA J.

Present petition is directed against the orders passed by two courts below whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. Order has been impugned on the ground that both the courts below have not appreciated the controversy in correct perspective. Pleas raised by the petitioners had been ignored from consideration. According to him, alleged offence was committed by Jarnail Singh, predecessor in interest of petitioners. Thus, no offence is made out against the petitioners and orders deserve to be quashed.

Heard.

Brief factual background of the case is that FIR was registered on the complainant of Darshan Singh, who is an NRI. He stated that he was the owner of plot measuring 11 kanals 3-1/2 marlas situated in village Nandpur, district Ludhiana. Said plot was purchased by him vide four different sale-deeds dated 08.05.1981, 08.05.1981, 26.05.1981 & 26.05.1981. However, on 28.06.2011 AJAY KUMAR 2016.04.25 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM M-9619 of 2016 he came to know that accused Jarnail Singh in connivance with other accused hatched a conspiracy and grabbed his land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas. He also got executed a sale-deed no. 10639 dated 18.08.1981 in his favour by producing a wrong person in his place. On registration of FIR, investigation ensued. Trail court held that the accused had acted in connivance with each other. The court thus, felt that offence under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC is attracted. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, trial court has to see whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. It need not embark on detailed analysis of the material on record. There is no ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction. Petition is, thus, dismissed being without any merit.

April 21, 2016 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2016.04.25 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document