In CRM-M-45189-2022 (O & M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC grants anticipatory bail to petitioner, who in connivance with others prepared forged Will and got it registered u/s 40 of Registration Act: P&H HC  
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi  [04-11-2022]

feature-top

 

 

Read Order: Gajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab 

 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, November 10, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has denied the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who in connivance with others prepared a forged Will of the deceased (initial owner of the property concerned) and thereafter in connivance with the Sub Registrar, got the same registered under Section 40 of the Registration Act

The Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi opined, 

Thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required not only to ascertain the role of the other accused including the Government officials but also to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.”

The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

The present FIR came to be registered on the application of the complainant alleging that one Piare Lal Bhagat, who was a retired PCS Officer had a property, which was claimed by his widow (Smt. Ram Piari). There was another woman who also claimed to be the wife of late Lal Bhagat.

After the death of Piare Lal Bhagat, in order to declare herself the owner of his property, Ram Piari filed a suit in 1987 and the said litigation was pending before the High Court. In 1997, Ram Piari executed an agreement to sell in his (complainant’s) favour regarding a house for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- out of which, she received Rs. 8,00,000/- as earnest money. When she did not execute the sale deed, he filed a civil suit which was partly decreed. An appeal was preferred and was allowed in 2011. Thereafter, in execution proceedings, the sale deed was executed in his favour and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was deposited in the Court.

Ram Piari also executed a Special Power of Attorney in 1989 and a General Power of Attorney in 1991 in his favour. The Sub Registrar executed the aforementioned sale deed on the orders of the Court and was, therefore, aware of the facts.

However, accused Satnam Singh got prepared a forged Will in 1986 of Piare Lal Bhagat in his favour in connivance with Karnail Singh, Nambardar and Balkirat Singh and in 2019, he connived with PPS Goraya, Balkirat Singh and Jagjit Singh and got the same registered under Section 40 of the Registration Act despite the fact that the said document was carrying forged signatures of Piare Lal Bhagat.

Likewise, Gajinder Kumar (petitioner) in connivance with Mahinder Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Anil Kumar Sharma Vasika Nawis got prepared another forged Will of Ram Piari (2010) and thereafter in connivance with PPS Goraya, Sub Registrar, got the same registered under Section 40 of the Registration Act in 2019. The same also carried forged signatures of Ram Piari. 

 

The above-named persons got registered two mutations i.e. one of Piare Lal Bhagat in connivance with Patwari and Kanoongo in favour of Gajinder Kumar (petitioner) which was disapproved. Thereafter, the accused persons again in connivance with the officials got registered mutation. The hearing of the dispute regarding the said mutations was pending in the Court of SDM-2, Amritsar. The said Will was prepared with a view to use the same in the appeals pending before the High Court. If the signatures on the Will purportedly executed by Ram Piari in favour of the accused were compared with her original signatures, the truth would be revealed.

 

It was the petitioner’s case that the complainant wanted to grab the property worth crores situated in a posh area of Amritsar which led to the registration of the present FIR. In fact, he got an ex parte decree on the basis of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Ram Piari. The Counsel added that the conduct of the complainant in purchasing the property through the Court smacks of mala fides.It was also submitted that the veracity of the Will, in question, which was said to be forged would be a subject-matter of examination during the course of pending civil/revenue litigations, and therefore, as the parties were yet to prove their respective cases, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required as the entire case is purely civil in nature and no case for custodial interrogation is made out.

 

On the other hand, the State Counsel argued that civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can co-exist and mere pendency of civil proceedings with respect to a document in question would not bar appropriate criminal proceedings in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. He further contended that once the Will in question was found to be prima facie forged and the beneficiary of the same was petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was certainly required looking into the gravity of the offence and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It was also submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was also required to verify the roles of the officers/officials of the Revenue Department and for proper and fair investigation of the case. 

 

After hearing the parties, the Court opined that undoubtedly, various civil/revenue proceedings were pending between the parties as referred to in the FIR as also in the reply of the State. 

 

“However, quite apparently, the Will allegedly executed by Ram Piari in favour of Gajinder Kumar (petitioner) dated 03.07.2010 has been found to be forged by the investigating agency as per the report of the FSL”, the Bench added. 

 

Thus, the Court held that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required not only to ascertain the role of the other accused including the Government officials but also to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Even otherwise, while making a reference to a Supreme Court case, the Court reiterated that the non-requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be the sole ground for grant of anticipatory bail.


 

Add a Comment