Single judge allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., setting aside the impugned order that dismissed the prosecution application for summoning witnesses to prove land sale deeds and mutations, holding it necessary for effective adjudication.
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.
-1-
CRM-M-19293 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19293 of 2015 Date of Decision: 24.07.2018
Yash Pal Chaudhary
....Petitioner
Versus
Parveen Tavatiya and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure P-3) of the trial Court, Gurgaon, whereby application of the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of two more witnesses to prove documents mark PA to PD in case FIR No.31 dated 06.02.2007 registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 56, Gurgaon, was dismissed.
In nutshell, respondents No.2 to 4 were booked under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC for cheating the petitioner-complainant for `20,00,000/- on the pretext of selling 40 bighas of land situated at Village Thoran, Dehradun, for which they had no valid title.
During trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of two more witnesses i.e. Clerk of Sh. Hari Sharma, Advocate, District Courts, Gurgaon, to prove legal notice (Mark Ravinder Singh 2018.07.25 11:32I attest to the accuracy andPA) and concerned Clerk of the Revenue Department, Dehradun, to prove authenticity of this document
the sale deeds and mutations (Mark PB to PD), who, erroneously due to
-2-
CRM-M-19293 of 2015
oversight, were not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that proving of the documents mentioned above is very much necessary to show that respondents No.2 to 4 were not the owners of the land in question, which they agreed to sell to the petitioner and duped him for `20,00,000/-. The trial Court without appreciating the above facts, wrongly and illegally dismissed the application of the prosecution for examination of the aforesaid witnesses.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, which are not opposed by learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, as they are unrepresented since last many dates, I find merit in this petition inasmuch as the documents sought to be proved by examination of above two witnesses by the prosecution would help the trial Court in effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. The trial Court did not appreciate that no prejudice is going to be caused to the accused, in case, application of the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
In view of the discussion made above, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.04.2015 is set aside. Petitioner is granted one opportunity to examine the aforesaid witnesses at his own risk and responsibility.
(RAMENDRA JAIN) July 24, 2018 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Ravinder Singh 2018.07.25 11:32I attest to the accuracy and Whether Reportable Yes/No authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court justified in dismissing the prosecution application for summoning additional witnesses to prove land documents.
Whether allowing the examination of said witnesses would cause prejudice to the accused.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Yash Pal Chaudhary
Parveen Tavatiya
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
