Gurwinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another

1
CRM-M-23374 of 2019(O&M) - -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH




CRM-M-23374 of 2019(O&M)
Date of Order:02.11.2026
Gurwinder Singh and others
..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Argued by: Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Yadav, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate and
Mr. Sourav Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2.
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , JUDGE
1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for
quashing FIR No. 44 dated 15.02.2019, under Sections 193, 419, 420, 120-
B, 485, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The facts, as narrated in the complaint are that complainant-
Jasbir Kaur daughter of Karnail Singh son of Bhan Singh resident of village
Kohara, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana was married with S. Gurwinder. Singh
son of Tajinder Singh resident of Ranjit Nagar, Patiala on 17.12.2000.
Karnail Singh son of Bhan Singh, father of the complainant died about 14
years back. He never executed any will or any document in favour of
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.03 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
anyone. Karnail Singh died intestate and after his death, he had only three

2
CRM-M-23374 of 2019(O&M) - -
legal heirs i.e. Kulwant Kaur widow, Gurwinder Singh son and complainant
daughter. After death of Karnil Singh, his estate was to be mutated in favour
of all the three legal heirs to the extent of 1/3rd share each. Accused no.1 and
2 in conspiracy with accused no.3 and 4 and one Rajinder Singh (since
expired) to grab valuable property, prepared a false and forged unregistered
will dated 24.02.1998 which did not bear the signatures of Karnail Singh.
They got entered mutation no. 3680 of village Kohara through the Patwari
on the basis of the forged Will. The matter went to Assistant Collector, Ist
Grade cum SDM (East), Ludhiana. Without service of Jasbir Kaur, accused
no.1 and 2 in criminal conspiracy with accused no.3 and 4 produced accused
no.4 before the office of SDM (East)-cum-Assistant Collector, Ist Grade,
Ludhiana showing her as Jasbir Kaur daughter of Karnail Singh. She made
false statement on 11.09.01 that she was daughter of Karnail Singh and that
Karnail Singh executed a will dated 24.02.1998 in favour of accused no.1
and 2.
Complainant further alleged that she never appeared before
SDM (East), Ludhiana on 11.09.01. Accused got sanctioned mutation on the
basis of forged and fabricated will dated 24.02.1998. Accused no.3 made
false statement on 13.09.01 before the Court of SDM (East)-cum-Assistant
Collector, Ist Grade, Ludhiana that he knew Karnail Singh and Karnail
Singh executed a will in favour of his son Gurvinder Singh and his wife
Balbir Kaur. Infact, name of wife of Karnail Singh was Kulwant Kaur,
accused no.1. Complainant further stated that few days back, she obtained
copy of jamabandi and learnt that by producing accused no.4 in her place
and by forging signatures of her father on a forged and fabricated will dated
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.03 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

3
CRM-M-23374 of 2019(O&M) - -
24.02.1998, mutation was wrongly got sanctioned, thereby causing wrongful
loss to her. Complainant also moved an application to the police, but the
police took no action against the accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent
No.2 Jasbir Kaur (complainant) filed an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) for registration of FIR against the petitioners. Instead
of directing registration of case, learned Trial Court treated the case as a
private complaint, recorded preliminary evidence and passed summoning
order dated 03.02.2016 summoning petitioners and Kulwant Kaur under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. One of the accused Kulwant
Kaur had died. During pendency of complaint, respondent No.2 filed CRM-
M-30989 of 2018 in this Court for directing officials respondents to
investigate the complaint and take legal action, without disclosing
pendency of the private complaint before the Trial Court and the factum of
the summoning order. The writ petition was disposed of by the Court with a
direction to the Commissioner of Police, to look into the allegations
regarding Will dated 24.02.1998. FIR No. 44 dated 15.02.2019 under
Sections 193, 419, 420, 120-B, 485, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station
Division No.5, Ludhiana was then registered against the petitioners and
Kulwant Kaur, on the basis of complaint of respondent No.2. The FIR and
all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom ought to be quashed on the
ground that respondent No.2 misused the process of law by filing CRM-M-
30989 of 2018 concealing the factum of pendency of private complaint and
summoning order.
4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.03 19:35
Sarabjeet Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Civil Lines,
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

4
CRM-M-23374 of 2019(O&M) - -
Ludhiana. He submits that that respondent No.2 made complaint to the
police prior to the private complaint instituted in the Court. Her application
No.596243 dated 23.09.2014 was moved to Commissioner of Police,
Ludhiana, for registration of case. An inquiry was conducted. Legal opinion
was sought from ACP, Ludhiana. Thereafter, FIR No. 44 dated 15.02.2019,
under Sections 193, 419, 420, 120-B, 485, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station
Division No.5, Ludhiana was registered against Kulwant Kaur and
petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also filed reply to the
petition. He argued that police rightly registered FIR against the petitioners
and in the circumstances of the case, where there was a police report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. and a complaint case with respect to the same offence,
learned Magistrate ought to club the complaint and the police report and try
them together as per Section 210 Cr.P.C. He further argued that petitioners
filed CRM-M-23333 of 2019 for initiating proceedings under Section 340
read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. against respondent No.2 for obtaining the
order by misleading the Court in CRM-M-30989 of 2018 and getting the
FIR registered which he had later withdrawn.
6. The facts which transpire from the record of the case are that
application bearing 596243 dated 23.09.2014 moved by respondent No.2
Jasbir Kaur seeking registration of criminal case against petitioners and
Kulwant Kaur was filed before the police authorities. When the police failed
to take action, private complaint under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471
read with Section 120-B IPC (Annexure P1) along with an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR was moved before learned
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.03 19:35
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. The Court did not order registration
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

5
CRM-M-23374 of 2019(O&M) - -
of FIR and treated the case as a private complaint, recorded preliminary
evidence. Vide order dated 03.02.2016 petitioners and Kulwant Kaur were
summoned to face trial under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
7. Meanwhile, CRM-M-30989 of 2018 was filed by respondent
No.2 before this Court praying for a direction to respondents/State of Punjab
and others to investigate the complaint submitted by her.
8. Following order was passed by this Court on 24.07.2018 while
disposing of the petition:
‘The petition is disposed of with direction to the
Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to look into the
allegations made in the representation (Annexure P3) only so
far as the Will dated 24.02.1998, is concerned. In case the
enquiry reveals that some action needs to be taken upon the
allegations made in the said representation, appropriate action
be taken in accordance with law. The needful be done within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.’
9. FIR No. 44 dated 15.02.2019, under Sections 193, 419, 420,
120-B, 485, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana was
then registered in Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. Annexure P5 is
the copy of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in CRM-M-30989 of 2018,
wherein the factum of summoning of the petitioners in the private complaint
filed in the Court was not disclosed.
10. Be that as it may, it does not appear that the police registered
FIR only on account of order dated 24.07.2018. Reply filed by the State
reveals that a complaint was already pending in the matter when the petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was instituted. No order for registration of FIR
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.03 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
was passed by the Court and it was only on conclusion of inquiry, duly

6
CRM-M-23374 of 2019(O&M) - -
verified by Gazetted Officers, under legal opinion that Commissioner of
Police, Ludhiana, approved registration of FIR and investigation.
Consequently, FIR No. 44 dated 15.02.2019, under Sections 193, 419, 420,
120-B, 485, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, was
registered.
11. Concededly, the pith and substance of allegations in the FIR and
the complaint case are the same and the accused in both cases are also the
same.
12. Section 210 Cr.P.C. provides a complete answer to the issues
posed in the petition. It lays down the procedure to be followed when there
is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.
As per Section 210 Cr.P.C. a complaint case is to be stayed when it is
brought to the notice of the Magistrate that police investigation on the same
matter is proceeding. The Magistrate shall then call for a report from the
police officer concerned to ensure that the investigation on the same matter
has been proceeding. If a report is made by investigating officer under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. and on such report, cognizance of the offence is taken by
Magistrate against any person, who is also an accused in the complaint case,
the Magistrate shall enquire into or try together the complaint case and the
case arising out of police report as if both the cases were instituted on police
complaint. Where a Magistrate has already taken cognizance on a police
report and thereafter a complaint is filed, Section 210 Cr.P.C. is not attracted.
13. In the case before us, the complaint and the summoning order
were passed prior to registration of FIR and the appropriate course to be
followed is to call for a report from the police officer and try the complaint
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.03 19:35
case and the police report together. Learned counsel for respondent No.2
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

7
CRM-M-23374 of 2019(O&M) - -
informs that learned Trial Court had already initiated the recourse to Section
210 Cr.P.C.
14. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not
be exercised in routine, but in rare and exceptional circumstances.
Allegations contained in the FIR prima-facie disclose commission of
offences and since remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 210
Cr.P.C., this Court must keep its hand away and allow the trial to proceed,
without going into the merits and de-merits of the allegations. Mere delay in
lodging of the FIR and non-disclosure of the private complaint in the
petition filed before the High Court, cannot by itself, vitiate the proceedings.
Inherent powers of the Court are to be exercised only where allegations in
the FIR fail to disclose any cognizance offence or are patently absurd or
inherently probable. The present case does not fall in that category.
Appropriate course is to allow the trial to continue under Section 210 Cr.P.C.
rather than prematurely terminating the prosecution based on the FIR.
Interference at this stage would defeat the very object of criminal justice and
is not warranted.
15. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
02.11. JUDGE
2026
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether reportable : Yes/No
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.03 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh