Sheo Ram Aggarwal vs Dharam Pal

R.P. Nagrath, J.—Prayer is made in the instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, whereby application under Sections 246(6) and 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning and examining essential witness, namely; Zile Singh, has been dismissed.

The matter arises out of a private complaint filed by petitioner against the respondent. The petitioner is a practicing advocate for 40 years and respondent the husband of sister of his wife. The respondent was owner of a plot which the petitioner-complainant purchased vide agreement dated 01.09.1994. There was a shop/construction already existing on the plot. The petitioner gave this plot to Pujari of the temple/care taker of Dharamshala for stacking fodder.

Learned petitioner''s counsel submits that complaint was filed in the year 2002 for an incident taking place on 09.06.2001 at about 8.00 a.m. in which the respondent and his accomplice (since died) demolished the construction illegally and unauthorizedly. The demolished material comprised of shutters, girders, bricks, doors etc. Which was removed by them. The petitioner complained of this illegal act to the respondent who threatened the petitioner to be killed by aiming firearm towards him. The matter was reported to the police and original documents were handed over to investigating officer. Police also obtained the signatures in the Court, for comparison of the signatures with the original agreement which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Madhuban. The petitioner had also handed over various documents bearing admitted signatures of respondent but those were not sent for comparison. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint case against the respondent.

It was stated that the petitioner examined all his witnesses before summoning. Pre-charge evidence was also led after the respondent appeared in the Court. The trial Court then framed charge against the respondent. It is further contended that after the parties adduced their respective evidence, it came to the notice of petitioner that one of the essential witness, namely; Zile Singh son of Chandi Ram an attesting witness to the agreement to sell could not be inadvertently examined. It was further contended that in the preliminary evidence before summoning of the respondent, the said witness had been produced.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any ground to interfere in the same.

It seems from the impugned order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) that the respondent-accused had denied the execution of agreement in question throughout, the same was rather attacked as forged and fabricated document. The petitioner had himself not examined Zile Singh in the pre-charge evidence and story of inadvertence and wrong impression is stated to be false and after thought. It was contended by the respondent before the trial Court that the question with regard to Zile Singh was specifically put to the petitioner in the pre-charge and after-charge evidence. It was also contended that the petitioner did not intentionally examine Zile Singh because various Courts have given clear cut findings as regard to the agreement to sell in question.

Copy of agreement dated 01.09.1994, in question, is Annexure P-1. This agreement purports to be attested by two persons, namely; Subhash Chander son of Neki Ram and Zile Singh son of Chandi Ram. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments that Subhash Chander did not support the petitioner even at the preliminary stage. That would have rather put the petitioner to an extra caution in making attempts to examine the other attesting witnesses during the trial in a complaint case instituted in the year 2007.

Learned trial Court has observed that the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed when the case was fixed for arguments. Even the respondent-accused had closed his defence evidence on 09.05.2014 by tendering certain documents.

In view of the aforesaid factors, it can be assumed that this was another attempt by the petitioner to further delay the disposal of complaint case which is pending for the last so many years. It was not the submission that petitioner-complainant was not afforded enough of opportunities to produce his evidence in support of the charge.

I find absolutely no ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction of the court for quashing of impugned order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Magistrate, which is well based.

Dismissed.