CRM-M/49312/2026 of GEETA RANI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER on 2 September 2026

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 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

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.

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 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 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.”

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 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