Petitioner sought quashing of order dismissing a criminal complaint alleging breaking open a lock and theft. High Court held petitioner failed to produce preliminary evidence and dismissed petition.
Petition dismissed as petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds to summon accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRL.MISC.NO. 12030-M OF 2001
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 11, 2006
Prem Raj
....PETITITIONER
VERSUS
Moti Ram and others ....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Petitioner Prem Raj, who is the complainant, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 23.8.1989 passed by the JMIC, Patiala, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner for summoning the accused respondents has been dismissed; and the order dated November 23, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which the revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order, has also been dismissed.
impugned orders.
“I have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and have also
CRL.MISC.NO. 12030-M OF 2001 -2-
gone through the file. The ld. counsel for the complainant has referred to the site plan mark-A in which room marked at pointJ is shown to be the ownership of the complainant. He has also referred to a reply alleged to be submitted by Sh. Badri Seth in a case titled Badri Seth Vs. Moti Ram in which he had allegedly admitted that he was in possession of the room in dispute. This reply is filed by Sh. Badri Seth but the complainant has failed to prove this reply as per provision of law. Moreover, from the reply, it cannot be inferred that averments made in the reply relate to the room in question. There is no evidence on the file that the accused had broken open the room in question or that they had committed the theft of the articles lying therein or that they had forcibly occupied the said room. No such witness was either cited or examined by the complainant, in whose presence, the accused might have committed the alleged crime. Admittedly, the complainant was not present at the spot when the accused had broken open the lock or had forcibly occupied the premises in dispute. There is thus no evidence on the file from which it may be inferred that the accused had committed the crime as alleged in the complaint. Admittedly, some more litigation is pending between the parties and thus the complaint appears to have been filed for some oblique motive. No sufficient ground is, therefore, made out for summoning the accused, in the present complaint. Same is accordingly dismissed.”
The revision preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by the
-3-
CRL.MISC.NO. 12030-M OF 2001
Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.
September 11, 2006 vkg
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prem Raj
Moti Ram
Satish Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
