This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the trial court's dismissal of an application for signature comparison. The High Court rejected the petitioner's plea, holding that the delay was intentional to fill evidence lacunae after ample opportunity was given, and at this stage the trial was complete.
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.
Crm. M. No.M-24675 of 2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crm. M. No.M-24675 of 2008 Decided on 3 .8. 2009.
Manjit Singh Lali
.............. Petitioner.
versus
Inderjit Singh Walia
........... Respondent.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present : Mr. J.B.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for respondent.
K.C.PURI, J
Manjit Singh Lali has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P-3) dismissing the application of the petitioner for comparison of the signatures of the respondent on notice Ex.PW-3/M in respect of the complaint case titled Manjit Singh Lal Versus Inderjit Singh Walia under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short – IPC) pending in the Court of Shri Sham Lal Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur.
It has been alleged by the petitioner-complainant that the
Crm. M. No.M-24675 of 2008
2
respondent is not a share-holder of the Company namely Hoshiarpur Express Transport Company Ltd, of which he is a Manager, though the respondent is claiming himself to be General Manager of the Company. In this way, the respondent has illegally issued various notices to various Directors, who have already been removed by the Management, showing himself to be General Manager of the Company. Therefore, the respondent has committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 473 of the IPC.
The petitioner-complainant moved application for comparison of signatures of the accused, which stands dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order while observing that the parties have led their respective evidence concerning the matter in controversy and now at this belated stage, the application is not maintainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The case of the complainant from the very beginning is that respondent/accused has sent notices Ex.PW-3/M showing him as General Manager, although he was not holding such status and was not even the share-holder of the Company. The complaint was filed as back as in the year 2000 and since than the case is pending. The criminal complaint cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused has already been recorded. Now the present petition is clearly mean to fill up the lacuna, which cannot be allowed. No reason has been given by the complainant-revisionist why the Expert has not been examined earlier. The complainant was given ample opportunity to lead evidence.
Crm. M. No.M-24675 of 2008
3
So, keeping in view the above circumstances, no case is made
out to interfere in the impugned order of the trial Court.
The instant petition stands dismissed.
August 03, 2009 (K.C. PURI) sv JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the trial court's order dismissing the application for signature comparison in a belled stage.
Whether the criminal complaint filed in 2000 can continue indefinitely without examination of an expert witness.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Manjit Singh Lali
Inderjit Singh Walia
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
