Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers ... vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 23 February, 1988
Citedby 14 docs - [View All]
Bir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 13 February, 2001
Dr. B.S. Sidhu vs The Punjab Agricultural ... on 8 January, 1991
J.K. Sobti Assistant District ... vs Surat Singh And Ors. on 6 January, 1995
The Rukanpura Alias Khus Khera ... vs Pritam Singh And Ors. on 25 July, 1996
Pehlad Singh vs State Of Haryana on 14 December, 1999

User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Pal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 18 February, 2010

Crl. Rev. No.2539 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Revision No.2539 of 2003

Date of Decision: 18 - 2 - 2010

Dharam Pal and another .....Petitioners v.

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ***

Present: Mr.J.S.Bhatia, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms.Hemlata Balhara, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate

for Balwinder Singh.

***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been preferred by Dharam Pal and Janamjay.

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that accused-petitioner Dharam Pal has expired, therefore, the present revision petition qua him shall abate. This Court has nothing to doubt the statement made by counsel for the petitioner. However, as a matter of abundant caution, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal is directed to hold an enquiry and determine the factum of death of Dharam Pal. In case it is found true, no reference be made to Crl. Rev. No.2539 of 2003 [2] this Court, otherwise Registry on receipt of report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal shall revive the present revision petition qua accused- petitioner Dharam Pal. Registrar Judicial shall monitor the enquiry and call for the report from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal within three months from today.

Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate has caused appearance for Balwinder Singh grandson of Rukmani Devi.

Rukmani Devi made statement Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PW2/C was registered. Rukmani Devi stated that she was married with Ran Singh. Out of marriage, no child was born. In the year 1975 Ran Singh husband of the complainant brought Jaipal to his house. Punni was niece of Ran Singh and was married at Village Bibipur. Punni had also no issue. Nasiba husband of Punni contracted second marriage with a girl of Village Salwan and Jaipal was born out of that wedlock. Ran Singh had executed a will regarding 8 acres of land in favour of Jaipal. But Jaipal fell in bad company and had taken many vices including consumption of liquor. For that reason Ran Singh had cancelled the will in the year 1980 and had turned Jaipal out of his house. Ran Singh suffered a decree regarding 16 acres and 12 marlas of land in favour of Rukmani Devi. Ran Singh died in the year 1980. It is stated that present accused in connivance with Bhura Singh procured a civil court decree for transfer of land of Rukmani Devi and for this purpose, they facilitated impersonation of Rukmani Devi.

The above said FIR was investigated. The petitioner was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in case FIR No.238 dated 22.6.1993 registered at Police Station Butana under Sections 467, Crl. Rev. No.2539 of 2003 [3] 468, 420, 471 and 120-B IPC.

Dharam Pal and Janamjay were tried along with Bhura and Nathia. Bhura and Nathia died during the pendency of the trial. The trial Court concluded that accused Dharam Pal, Janamjay and Bhura on 22..4.1992 produced another lady, accused Nathia in place of Rukmani Devi in the Court and procured a decree in their favour and defrauded the complainant. Petitioners Dharam Pal and Janamjay were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 465 IPC. A similar sentence was imposed under Section 468 IPC. For offence under Section 420 IPC, both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. They were also sentenced under Section 471 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each. The accused were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 120-B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine, both the accused were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved against the same, petitioners had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court maintained the conviction and upheld the sentence under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. However, offence under Section 420 IPC was converted into Section 419 IPC and sentence was reduced to 1½ years rigorous imprisonment.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction. However, in the present case occurrence took place in the year 1993 when Nathia was produced in place of Rukmani Crl. Rev. No.2539 of 2003 [4] Devi. Counsel state that, however, during the pendency of the present revision petition, the parties had arrived at a compromise and accused has facilitated setting aside of the decree which was obtained by impersonation. Counsel further stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties and the parties are living in the same village by maintaining amity and harmony. Cordial relations are being maintained by the accused and complainant party.

Mr.Karan Singh, counsel appearing for Balwinder Singh grandson of complainant Rukmani Devi has stated that since accused facilitated setting aside of the decree and the land has been restored to legal heirs of Rukmani Devi, complainant do not intend to continue with the prosecution and pray to this Court that sentence awarded to petitioner Janamjay be reduced to that of already undergone. Taking into consideration the fact that parties have arrived at a compromise, this Court is of the view that the statement made by counsel for the complainant should be given due credence. It is stated that petitioner Janamjay had undergone more than 3 ½ months of actual sentence. Thus, the sentence awarded to petitioner Janamjay is reduced to already undergone. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )

February 18, 2010. JUDGE RC