On a revision petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the setting aside of a summoning order, this court held that the dispute was civil in nature with a concluded civil suit. Finding no ground for interference, the petition was dismissed.
Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed with no order for costs.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12025 of 2014
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-12025 of 2014 Date of Decision: 12.9.2014.
Ram Kishan
......Petitioner
Versus
Gian Chand and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 5.3.2014 whereby revision petition filed by respondent No. 1, was allowed and, consequently, summoning order passed by the Trial Court dated 29.7.2011, was set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court of Revision had erred in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Trial Court.
Case of the petitioner-complainant, in brief, was that he was cultivating the land in question with his brothers and the same had been got transferred by respondent No. 1 in his name in collusion with the revenue officials. Petitioner had mortgaged some land in favour of respondent No. 1 and had executed a mortgage deed but respondent No. 1 had fraudulently got a sale deed executed in his favour qua the land instead of mortgage deed.
In support of his case, petitioner led his preliminary
GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.18 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-12025 of 2014
evidence.
Trial Court vide order dated 29.7.2011, ordered the summoning of respondent No. 1 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court of Revision while allowing the revision petition, has held that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature. Civil suit qua the subject matter in question had already been decided between the parties.
Thus, the petitioner had the remedy to challenge the sale deed in question by way of civil suit and could not resort to initiation of criminal proceedings against respondent No. 1. The reasons given by the Court of Revision while allowing the revision petition, are sound reasons.
No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
September 12, 2014 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.18 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 482 CrPC when a dispute is civil and the civil suit has been decided.
Whether the reasoning of the Court of Revision in setting aside the summoning order under Section 420 IPC requires intervention.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Kishan
Gian Chand
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
