Geeta Rani vs State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 141 )
CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
GEETA RANI
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. S.S. Behl, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Vir S. Behl, Advocate and
Ms. Raageshwari Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the impugned order dated
17.03.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the revision petition preferred by respondent
No. 2 against the order dated 07.06.2023 ( Annexure P-5 ) passed by the
learned Magistrate has been allowed. The said order dated 07.06.2023 was
passed on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 26 dated
19.04.2016, registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC [now
Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS] at Police
Station Division No. 1, District Ludhiana, whereby the learned Trial Court
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M)
( 2 )
had directed the petitioner to face proceedings in the aforesaid FIR. The
impugned order dated 17.03.2026 is assailed as being legally
unsustainable, arbitrary and cryptic, particularly in view of the fact that
another co-accused, namely Parminder Mehta, who is similarly situated
and stands on an identical footing with respondent No. 2, had also
challenged the very same order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the learned
Trial Court allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. qua four
accused persons. The revision petition preferred by Parminder Mehta,
however, was dismissed and he was directed to face trial. Respondent No.
2, being similarly circumstanced and standing on the same factual and
legal footing as the said co-accused, could not, in the absence of any
distinguishing circumstance or cogent reason, have been granted a
different treatment by the learned Revisional Court.
2. The present petition has been necessitated by the petitioner’s
grievance against the impugned order dated 17.03.2026, whereby the
learned Revisional Court allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.
2 against the order dated 07.06.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed under Section
319 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court had allowed the petitioner’s
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned four persons, namely
Parminder Mehta, Sarita, Aarti Rani and Arvinder Singh (respondent No.
2), upon recording specific findings regarding their prima facie
involvement. While Sarita and Aarti Rani did not challenge the said order,
both Parminder Mehta and respondent No. 2 preferred criminal revisions.
The revision filed by Parminder Mehta was dismissed and the order dated
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M)
( 3 )
07.06.2023 was upheld, whereas the revision preferred by respondent No.
2 has been allowed by the impugned order.
2.1. FIR No. 26 dated 19.04.2016, registered under Sections
420/467/468/471/120-B IPC [now Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2)
and 61(2) BNS] at Police Station Division No. 1, District Ludhiana, was
registered on the petitioner’s allegations regarding fabrication and forgery
of the Will of her parents and manipulation of the corresponding
Municipal Corporation record. During trial, the petitioner, in her
deposition, specifically attributed roles to Parminder Mehta, the then
Councillor, and Arvinder Singh/respondent No. 2, a property dealer,
pursuant to which an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated
16.08.2019 (Annexure P-4) was moved seeking their summoning along
with Sarita and Aarti Rani.
2.2. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the material
emerging during trial, allowed the application vide order dated 07.06.2023
(Annexure P-5), recording specific findings regarding the prima facie
involvement of the proposed accused, including respondent No. 2.
Significantly, while dismissing Parminder Mehta’s revision and upholding
the said order, the learned Revisional Court itself recorded findings
regarding his position as Councillor and the role attributed to respondent
No. 2 as a property dealer. Despite the aforesaid factual and legal position,
the revision preferred by respondent No. 2 has been allowed merely on the
premise that he was an attesting witness, without adequately adverting to
the specific allegations and incriminating deposition of the petitioner
forming the basis of his summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M)
( 4 )
2.3. The petitioner was also not effectively served in the revision
proceedings, as is borne out from the relevant zimni orders, wherein
service was allegedly effected upon her minor nephew and, in the case of
respondent No. 2, upon her daughter-in-law residing on a different floor of
the same premises. Consequently, the petitioner was deprived of an
effective opportunity to contest the revision and place the relevant factual
and legal position before the learned Revisional Court.
2.4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the divergent treatment
accorded to respondent No. 2, despite his standing on the same factual and
legal footing as co-accused Parminder Mehta whose revision was
dismissed, coupled with the failure to duly consider the petitioner’s
deposition and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, renders
the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 legally unsustainable. The impugned
order, therefore, warrants interference in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court, hence the petition.
3. The allegations of forgery raised by the petitioner pertain to
the Wills purportedly executed by parents of petitioner, which are alleged
to have been forged and fabricated. Arvinder Singh Chini had no nexus
whatsoever with the execution, preparation or registration of the said
Wills. He was neither the scribe nor an attesting witness to the Wills, nor is
any specific role in their registration attributed to him. His alleged
involvement is confined to his having stood as a marginal witness to
certain sale deeds subsequently executed by the beneficiaries of the Wills
in favour of third parties. Significantly, there is no material on record to
suggest that the sale deeds witnessed by Arvinder Singh Chini were forged
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M)
( 5 )
or fabricated. The said sale deeds have been referred to only in the context
of the allegation that, subsequent to the purported fabrication of the Wills,
the beneficiaries thereof proceeded to alienate the subject property in
favour of third parties.
3.1. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, however, contends
that the learned Judicial Magistrate, while allowing the application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., exercised the statutory discretion upon due
consideration of the evidence that had emerged on record and recorded
cogent and legally sustainable reasons for summoning Arvinder Singh
Chini. It is argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while
exercising revisional jurisdiction, failed to subject the impugned order to
the requisite judicial scrutiny and, consequently, exercised revisional
discretion in a manner inconsistent with the settled parameters governing
interference with an order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further
submitted that Parminder Mehta, who was similarly situated and had also
been summoned pursuant to the same order dated 07.06.2023 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, challenged the said order by way of
revision; however, his revision petition came to be dismissed, thereby
resulting in the order of summoning being sustained qua him.
4. It is trite that the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction
vested in a Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised
sparingly, cautiously and only where the evidence brought on record
discloses circumstances warranting the addition of a person as an accused.
The evidentiary threshold under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is undoubtedly higher
than the mere existence of a prima facie case, though it does not extend to
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M)
( 6 )
the degree of proof which, if left unrebutted, would necessarily culminate
in conviction. The learned Judicial Magistrate, while exercising the said
jurisdiction and summoning Arvinder Singh Chini as an additional
accused, recorded the following findings:-
“ In so far as accused persons namely Arvinder Singh Chini
property dealer is concerned, his involvement is also prima facie as he is
witness in the sale deeds bearing Vasika No. 16331 dated 12.02.2014 Ex.
P4, bearing Vasika No. 16332 dated 13.02.2014 Ex. P5, whereby accused
Raman Kumar and Ravinder Kumar had transferred property to Ramesh
Jain and to Vaneet Jain respectively.”
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly placed
reliance upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab,
2014(3) SCC 92 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while delineating
the contours and evidentiary threshold governing the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has observed as under:-
“ Though under Section 319 (4)(b) Cr.P.C. the accused
subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused
when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of
satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section
319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in
the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a
subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have
already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course
of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned
accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial
therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original
and subsequent) has to be different.”
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M)
( 7 )
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in paragraph No.12 of
the impugned order, has correctly appreciated the nature and extent of the
allegations against Arvinder Singh Chini and rightly observed that his role
is confined to that of an attesting/marginal witness to the sale deeds.
Significantly, it is not the case of the prosecution that the said sale deeds
themselves are forged or fabricated. The gravamen of the prosecution case
is rather that the brothers of the complainant and her sister-in-law procured
forged and fabricated Wills purportedly executed by their predecessors,
secured transfer of the property in their favour on the strength thereof and
thereafter alienated the said property in favour of different persons. Mere
attestation of the subsequent sale deeds, without any material connecting
Arvinder Singh Chini with the alleged fabrication or procurement of the
Wills, cannot, by itself, furnish a legally sustainable basis for his
arraignment under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
7. A comprehensive scrutiny of the evidence brought on record
does not disclose any material, much less evidence of the requisite
probative worth, demonstrating the involvement of the revisionist in the
preparation, fabrication or procurement of the alleged forged Wills. No
overt act, foundational circumstance or evidentiary circumstance has
emerged which could reasonably connect him with the substantive
allegations constituting the offences in question.
8. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ludhiana reflects a judicious, rational and legally sustainable
appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record, viewed
in the backdrop of the stringent parameters governing the exercise of
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49312-2026 (O&M)
( 8 )
jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Revisional Court has
neither travelled beyond the material on record nor committed any
jurisdictional error in declining to sustain the summoning of the revisionist
in the absence of cogent material establishing his nexus with the alleged
forgery. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from neither illegality nor
perversity nor any material infirmity warranting interference in exercise of
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Case of Parminder Mehta is on
different footing. As allegations are that record of Municipal Corporation
was also fabricated. Parminder Mehta is a Municipal Corporator and has
attested pedgree table. So material against Parminder Mehta is quite
distinct and case of respondent No.2 cannot be adjudicated on that material
but is rightly decided on material alleged against him. The present petition,
being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed .
9. In light of the final disposition of the captioned matter, all
pending miscellaneous and interconnected applications are hereby deemed
disposed of. The adjudication of the primary dispute has spent the force of
these ancillary proceedings, rendering them infructuous ex facie .
Consequently, no independent or supplemental orders are warranted or
required in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
02.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document