High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/40416/2017dismissed

Jaswinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2019-03-27Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain4 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.03.2019 Jaswinder Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. AS Gill, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. HS Batth, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing order dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure P-11) of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran, whereby application filed by petitioner-complainant under Section 216 Cr.P.C., for amendment of charge was dismissed. Further prayer has also been made for quashing order dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P-12) vide which revision filed by the petitioner against the order Annexure P-11 was dismissed by the Revisional Court.

Briefly, respondent No. 2-Gurdial Singh, in connivance with his co-accused, got transferred 6 acres of land of his real brother Jaswant Singh, vide two transfer/sale deeds dated 03.01.2005 and 28.02.2005. Father of the petitioner is the real brother of respondent No. 2 and

-2Jaswant Singh, aforesaid. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid action of respondent No. 2, he filed a complaint against his uncle Gurdial Singh and four others i.e. Lambardar of the village, Tehsildar, who had registered the aforesaid transfer/sale deeds, Sarpanch of the village and one Ajit Singh, who had attested the aforesaid transfer/sale deeds. After recording preliminary evidence, the trial Court only summoned respondent No. 2-Gurdial Singh and dismissed the complaint against private respondents No. 3 to 5 and Hansa Singh, Tehsildar, vide order dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-2).

Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the revisional Court who accepted his revision vide order dated 16.04.2010 (Annexure P-3) thereby directing the trial Court to summon the private respondents No. 3 to 5 and Hansa Singh, Tehsildar, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

Being dissatisfied, respondents No. 3 to 5 approached this Court, by way of CRR-1857-2010, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2010 (Annexure P-4). Consequently, respondents No. 3 to 5 had to face trial with respondent No. 2, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

Hansa Singh, Tehsildar, vide separate revision bearing CRR1787-2010, challenged his summoning by the trial Court before this Court, which was accepted vide order dated 16.01.2015 (Annexure P-5), remanding the case to the revisional Court to decide the matter afresh. In the meantime, the petitioner withdrew his complaint against aforesaid Hansa Singh, Tehsildar, by making statement before the

-3learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran on 10.07.2015. Thereafter, the trial Court charge-sheeted private respondents No. 2 to 5 under Section 420 IPC, vide order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-8) against which the petitioner filed a revision for summoning private respondents No. 2 to 5 additionally under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide order dated 17.02.2016.

The petitioner thereafter, as a clever move, moved application (Annexure P-9) under Section 216 Cr.P.C., for addition of charge under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide impugned order 25.04.2016 (Annexure P-11), on the ground that since revisions raising the same plea of the petitioner have already been dismissed, therefore, the private respondents could not have been charge-sheeted additionally under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

Revision filed by the petitioner against the said order Annexure P-11, was also dismissed by the Revisional Court, vide order dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P-12).

At the outset, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 contends that the petitioner by concealing the factum of order dated 17.02.2016 qua dismissal of his revision for charge-sheeting private respondents additionally under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, has filed the instant petition. Therefore, the same should be outrightly dismissed.

-4Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refute the above submission of learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5, inasmuch as, the fact of dismissal of revision of the petitioner by the Revisional Court, for charge-sheeting the private respondents additionally under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, has been concealed by the the petitioner. The same has been mentioned in the impugned order Annexure P-11 of the trial Court. Therefore, the application of the petitioner under Section 216 Cr.P.C., has rightly been dismissed by the trial Court vide order Annexure P-11 which was affirmed by the Revisional Court, vide order Annexure P-12. Resultantly, the instant petition having no merits is dismissed.

March 27, 2019 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No