Judgment:
Crl.
Misc.
No.M33759of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl.
Misc.
No.M33759of 2013 Date of decision: 20.05.2014 Kanwal Krishan .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal -.- Present: Mr.G S Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporter or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Rekha Mittal, J.
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred for quashing the judgments dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P18).passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and dated 28.10.2006 (Annexure P13).passed by the trial Court as well as order dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P17).passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 427, 448, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) against the private respondents was dismissed by the Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.05.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
No.M33759of 2013 2 learned trial Court and the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.10.2006 as well as the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C for leading additional evidence, were dismissed by the revisional Court.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that qua the property in dispute, civil litigation is pending between the parties and in Regular Second Appeal No.4756 of 2003 titled Kanwal Krishan v.
Iqbal Singh and others pending in this Court, the Tehsildar, Ludhiana (East) visited the spot as per the orders passed by this Court and prepared the site plan as well as a detailed report regarding the plot in question, subject matter in the criminal litigation and the said report was sought to be produced as additional evidence, but the revisional Court has erroneously declined the said application.
It is further submitted that had the petitioner been allowed to produce that document by way of additional evidence, it would substantiate the plea of the petitioner in regard to offence punishable under Section 448 IPC.
It is further submitted that the trial Court and the revisional Court failed to correctly and meticulously appreciate the evidence on record, which prima facie proves culpability of the persons arraigned as accused in the criminal complaint.
It is further submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the trial Court for conducting further inquiry.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
The petitioner initiated proceedings against Nirmal Singh and others for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 427, 448, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC.
With regard to allegations of the petitioner that the accused have committed offence of forgery and fraud Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.05.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
No.M33759of 2013 3 punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the plea of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Courts below.
In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in 'Md.Ibrahim and others v.
State of Bihar and otheRs.2009(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 369.
With regard to plea of the petitioner that the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 427 and 448 IPC, there is no evidence on record to prima facie prove that he was in possession of the land in dispute.
I do not find any error much less illegality in the consistent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below as would call for intervention.
So far as plea of the petitioner that the revisional Court declined his prayer for leading additional evidence, there is no provision in Cr.P.C, which entitles the Court in revision to allow an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C.The power under Section 391 Cr.P.C can be exercised by the appellate Court.
This apart, it appears that the petitioner intended to re-open the entire matter, taking advantage of some report prepared recently in civil proceedings pending before this Court.
The said report cannot be per se admissible in the criminal proceedings because the same is to be proved in accordance with law.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed.
(Rekha Mittal) 20.05.2014 Judge mohan Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.05.27 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh