-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 :::