Lal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 7 December, 2017

-1-
CRM-M-11460 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-11460 of 2017
Date of Decision: 07.12.2017

Lal Singh
….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another
….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present: – Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

In compliance of order dated 02.12.2017, learned counsel for the

petitioner has produced the receipt of ` 5,000/- deposited with the Member

Secretary, Punjab Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh, as costs. The same

is taken on record.

Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

made for setting aside order dated 08.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by

learned SDJM, Payal, closing the prosecution evidence and also order dated

14.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) of the Revisional Court affirming the order

dated 08.11.2016 (Annexure P-1).

Put pithily, the petitioner got registered FIR No.302 dated

16.11.2008 under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 201 IPC against respondent

No.2 at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana, in which after due

investigation, final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed against

respondent No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted to face

trial under all the aforesaid Sections.1 ofDuring
3 trial, when the prosecution did
10-12-2017 15:46:18 :::
-2-
CRM-M-11460 of 2017

not complete its evidence, in spite of availing several opportunities, the trial

Court closed the prosecution evidence vide impugned order dated

08.11.2016 (Annexure P-1). Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner

approached the Revisional Court, but remained unsuccessful and his

revision was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure P-2).

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2

is a police official and, thus, the prosecution witnesses did not come present

and got recorded their statements. It was not in the hand of the

petitioner/complainant to examine the prosecution witnesses i.e. Officials of

the Government department, therefore, it was the duty of the Court to

examine them by procuring their presence by adopting coercive methods, if

they were not appearing through ordinary process.

Learned State counsel contends that whatever documents are

intended to be brought on record are in the shape of photocopies, thus, they

are not sufficient to prove the guilt of respondent No.2 to the hilt.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the

arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for

dismissal of the instant petition. He has produced certified copies of the

zimni orders of the trial Court. The same are taken on record. Learned

counsel submits that perusal of zimni orders shows that the prosecution

could/did not conclude its evidence in a span of around five years despite

seeking repeated adjournments, may be around 40, as has been mentioned

by the trial Court in the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by learned

SDJM, Payal. Learned counsel submitted that according to the

petitioner/complainant, who proclaims himself to be a Press Reporter, has

lodged the instant FIR against respondent No.2, levelling allegations that

respondent No.2 went abroad on2 of 3false medical certificate and also
10-12-2017 15:46:19 :::
-3-
CRM-M-11460 of 2017

impersonated himself as Sub Inspector though he was only Assistant Sub

Inspector. Respondent No.2 is a Government official, but he also indulges

in private business since last three years, to which the department of

respondent No.2 needs to probe it.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and also gone through interlocutory orders.

Considering over-all facts and circumstances, it seems that

petitioner is pursuing a luxury litigation against respondent No.2 to satisfy

his whims and fantasies for the reasons best known to him. The petitioner,

admittedly, was convicted by the trial Court in case FIR No.55 dated

13.04.2003 under Section 354 IPC got lodged by a woman at Police Station

Payal, which was investigated by respondent No.2, but has now been

acquitted by the appellate Court.

Instant case pertains to the year 2008. Respondent No.2 has

already been made to suffer the protracted trial for around nine years. There

is no fault of him if the prosecution could not conclude its evidence in a

span of five years after framing of charges and availing around/more than

40 opportunities.

I have gone through the orders of both the Courts below and find

no illegality or perversity in the same. Accordingly, this petition is

dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN)
December 07, 2017 JUDGE
R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
10-12-2017 15:46:19 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *