Dismissed¶35

Hargobind Bansal Alias Raksh Bansal v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2026CRR/235/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court; CRR-235-2026; Justice Anoop Chitkara; decided 26.05.2026 (reserved 05.05.2026); Criminal Revision by complainant against SDJM Nabha order dated 17.09.2025 dismissing State's Section 311 CrPC application to re-summon PW2 Registry Clerk for tendering sale deed dated 20.01.1981 (Vasika No.2610); two-year delay after completion of cross-examination in November 2023; rebuttal-evidence opportunity missed; accused cannot suffer for prosecution's lapse; FIR No.019 dated 05.03.2022, PS Kotwali Nabha, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated September 17, 2025 is well detailed and well reasoned and calls for no interference. ¶29

Hargobind Bansal Alias Raksh Bansal Vs State… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated September 17, 2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha dismissing the State's application under Section 311 CrPC for re-summoning PW2 to tender the copy of the alleged sale deed dated 20.01.1981 calls for interference in this Criminal Revision.

¶28

Court's answer

The impugned order dated September 17, 2025 is well detailed and well reasoned and calls for no interference.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Since the cross-examination of PW2 had completed in November 2023 and the Section 311 CrPC application was filed after a gap of two years with no reason given for the delay, dismissal of the application was justified.

¶28

Key takeaways

If the copy could not be tendered in examination-in-chief, the State had the right on two occasions (during cross-examination) to place it on record by way of rebuttal evidence, which it failed to do.ratio¶29
The failure to tender the document lying in police custody was attributable to the prosecution (for the Director Prosecution to examine and fix its system), not to the accused, and cannot be made a ground for the accused, already facing trial, to suffer.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRR-235-2026, decided 26.05.2026, Anoop Chitkara J.) — Complainant-petitioner challenged the order dated September 17, 2025 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha dismissing the State's application under Section 311 CrPC seeking re-summoning of PW2 (Rupinder Singh, Registry Clerk) to tender in evidence the copy of the alleged sale deed dated 20.01.1981 (Vasika No.2610), which had been in police custody since the investigation of FIR No.019 dated 05.03.2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, PS Kotwali, Nabha. PW2's cross-examination had concluded on November 8, 2023 and the application was filed after a two-year gap with no reason for the delay; further, the State had two opportunities to tender the document as rebuttal evidence and did not avail of them. Holding that the lapse lay with the prosecution/Director Prosecution and could not be visited upon the accused already facing trial, the Court found no ground to recall PW2 and no illegality in the impugned order. Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRR-235-2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRR-235-2026

¶5

JUDGEMENT	JUDGEMENT	OPERATIVE PART	UPLOADED
RESERVED ON	PRO-	PRONOUNCED OR	ON
	NOUNCED ON	FULL
05.05.2026	26.05.2026	FULL PRONOUNCED	26.05.2026

¶6

Hargobind Bansal alias Raksh Bansal ......Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Gurnoor Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Ms. Kashika Maheshwary, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶15

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
19	05.03.2022	Kotwali, Nabha	420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 IPC

¶16

Challenging the order dated September 17, 2025 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial

¶17

Magistrate Nabha, the complainant (petitioner herein) has come up before this court by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition.

¶18

After issuing the notices, despite service, private respondents did not appear and

¶19

as such this court had appointed Ms. Kashika Maheshwari, Advocate as their Legal Aid counsel.

¶20

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, State counsel as well as Legal Aid counsel appointed on behalf of the private respondents No.2 & 3 and gone through the petition and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

¶21

The allegations in the FIR are that respondents No.2 & 3 in connivance with each other, had tampered with and forged the sale deed bearing Vasika number 2610 dated

¶22

ANJU RANI 2026.05.26 15:37 20.01.1981 which at that time was lying in the record rooms of office of Sub Registrar, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶23

-2-

¶24

CRR-235-2026

¶25

Nabha and they wrongly incorporated the property shown to have been purchased by father of accused Gurjit Singh and entered the name in official record of the Sub Registrar Nabha, pertaining to Vasika No.2610 dated 20.01.1981. Based on this allegation, FIR No. 019 dated 05.03.2022 was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Nabha.

¶26

The trial commenced and the prosecution examined PW2 Rupinder Singh, Registry Clerk.

¶27

A perusal of the petition points out that statement of PW2 Rupinder Singh was recorded earlier on May 10, 2023 and after that his cross examination was conducted on May 24, 2023 and again cross-examined on November 8, 2023. After that the State filed an application under Section 311 CrPC for re-summoning of PW2 Rupinder Singh Registry Clerk to tender in evidence the copy of alleged sale dated 20.01.1981. It was stated that the copy of alleged sale deed dated 20.01.1981 was taken into police possession during investigation of the present case and it was not tendered in evidence by the prosecution which is a material document.

¶28

Vide a detailed order dated September 17, 2025 learned trial judge dismissed the said application for multiple reasons. One of the reasons was that the cross examination had completed in November 2023 and the application was filed after a gap of two years and no reason was given for the delay.

¶29

I have gone through the impugned order which is well detailed and well reasoned and calls for no interference. Furthermore, the cross examination of PW2 had taken place on two occasions. If the copy could not be tendered in examination-in-chief then on two occasions State had the right to place it on record by rebuttal evidence which was not done. After a gap of two years now the State has filed application under Section 311 CrPC to tender in evidence a record which was already in their notice and knowledge. Had there been no delay it would have been altogether a different matter that it was an omission, but in the present case if the original copy was not tendered in evidence, it was for the Director Prosecution to have examined and fix their system. It is not the case that it was at the connivance or at the end of the accused that the document which was with the police

¶30

ANJU RANI 2026.05.26 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶31

-3-

¶32

CRR-235-2026

¶33

custody was not tendered in evidence. If it is a case of mediocrity or lack of understanding, then it is for the State to see that mediocres are shown the door but it cannot be a ground to make the accused suffer who are already facing the trial.

¶34

Given the above there is no ground to recall PW2 and even otherwise the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference

¶35