Dismissed

Amrik Singh v. Ajmer Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2010CRM-M/16357/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition, the petitioner sought quashing of a complaint alleging forgery in a withdrawn civil suit. The High Court held no case was made out for interference as the petitioner failed to show any legal infirmity in the trial court's order or demonstrate the appeal was maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint was dismissed.

Amrik Singh Vs Ajmer Singh etc. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-16357 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-16357 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.8.2010

Amrik Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)

¶12

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein petitioner has sought quashing of complaint No.12 dated 18^th August, 2008 (Annexure P-3), under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC as well as orders Annexures P-2 and P-4 dated 15.7.2008 and 27.3.2010 respectively.

¶13

The brief factual background of the case is that a civil suit for recovery was filed by the petitioner against Ajmer Singh respondent. The suit was later withdrawn. After withdrawal of the suit, said Ajmer Singh filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that petitioner in connivance with certain persons had produced forged and fabricated pronote and receipts before the court. After taking into consideration the statement of Dr. Inderjit Singh (Handwriting and Finger Print Expert) alongwith complainant (Ajmer Singh), application to lodge a complaint against petitioner and co-accused was

¶14

Crl. Misc. No. M-16357 of 2010 2

¶15

allowed vide order dated 15.7.2008 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. The petitioner challenged the order dated 15^th July, 2008 (Annexure P-2) by preferring an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The same was, however, dismissed, vide order dated 27^th March, 2010 (Annexure P-4) being time barred. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning the complaint and all subsequent proceedings.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has committed a grave error in passing order dated 15.7.2008, whereby it was decided to lodge complaint against petitioner and coaccused for commission of offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. According to him, there is nothing to show that the petitioner committed any forgery or fabricated any record.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

¶18

A perusal of the order dated 15^th July, 2008, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur shows that an enquiry as envisaged by Section 340 was conducted. Handwriting and finger print experts were examined by the court. They opined regarding tampering with the pronote, on the basis of which suit was filed. Tampering was done in such a manner as to bring the suit within limitation. After coming to a prima facie conclusion that document in question had been tampered/forged, the court allowed the application filed before it.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-16357 of 2010 3

¶21

out any legal infirmity with the order, Annexure P-2, passed by the court below. As regards appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order, the same was dismissed as time barred. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to how appeal was maintainable against the order, Annexure P-2, passed by the trial court.

¶22

Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶23

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶24

27.8.2010 'rajpal'

Amrik Singh v. Ajmer Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh v. Ajmer Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shyam Verma Vs State of Haryana

Pargat Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Kulwant Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Tarsem Chand Vs State of Punjab

Devinder Chand Vs State of Punjab