Criminal Misc. No. M-22471 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22471 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.05.2010 Tarlok Singh aged 62 years son of Maan Singh son of Gurdit Singh, Agriculturist, resident of village Rehrwan, District Moga. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. K.S. Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. R.K. Nihal Singh Wala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the orders dated 12.03.09 and 28.03.09, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, in case FIR No. 126 dated 14.06.06, under Sections 120-B, 379, and, 420 IPC, P.S. Dharamkot, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the aforesaid FIR, was registered, on the direction of this Court, vide order dated Criminal Misc. No. M-22471 of 2009 2 12.05.06 (Annexure P3), passed in Criminal Misc. No. 7431-M of 2006. He further submitted that, the complainant, not only presented all the relevant documents, which were in his possession, but the report of the Forensic Expert Mr. Vikram Raj Singh Chouhan also, which clearly proved, the forged thumb impression of Mohanta Singh, on the Will dated 28.12.04, on the basis whereof, the mutation, was sanctioned, in the name of the LRs of Mohanta Singh, from whom, Mohinder Singh father of Mukhtiar Singh, SP (D), Nawan Shahar, accused, purchased the property, in collusion with the Revenue officials. He further submitted that, ultimately, cancellation report, was submitted, by the Investigating Agency. He further submitted that, the cancellation report, was not accepted, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, vide order dated 20.12.08 (Annexure P8), and, further investigation, was ordered to be made. He further submitted that, thereafter, no further investigation, was made, nor the cancellation report, was again presented, but the Court, in its order dated 12.03.09, recorded that, the same, had been presented, but the complainant, did not agree with the same. He further submitted that, thereafter, vide order dated 28.03.09, the Court below, reviewed its own order dated 20.12.08, and, accepted the cancellation report. He further submitted that, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, could not review its own order, dated 20.12.08, vide which, further investigation, had been ordered to be made properly. He further submitted that, the orders dated 12.03.09 and 28.03.09, thus, being illegal, are liable to be set aside. Criminal Misc. No. M-22471 of 2009 3 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, as per the order dated 12.03.09, cancellation report, was filed. When the Counsel for the respondent, was asked, as to on which date, the cancellation report, was again submitted, before the Court concerned alongwith further investigation report, ordered vide order dated 20.12.08, she could not answer this query. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Once the cancellation report, presented on 20.12.08, was not accepted, by the concerned Court, and, it directed, that further investigation be held properly, it could not accept the same without presentation of the cancellation report again with the report of further investigation. The perusal of the record shows, that the cancellation report, was not again submitted with further investigation report, by the Investigating Agency, at any point of time, but, it was wrongly recorded, in the order dated 12.03.09, that it was filed. It appears that, the mention of the words 'cancellation report filed', in the order dated 12.03.09, was under mis-conception, as earlier, such a report, was filed, on 20.12.08. Even the Counsel for the respondent, as stated above, could not answer the query, as to when, the cancellation report, was again presented, after further investigation, in the concerned Court. No doubt, after the receipt of further investigation report and presentation of cancellation report again, the Court, could be said to be competent, to pass an order, Criminal Misc. No. M-22471 of 2009 4 accepting or rejecting the same, but not otherwise. In State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair, 2001(2), RCR (Criminal), 657 (SC), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that Section 362 Cr.P.C., mandates that, no Court, when it has signed its judgement or final order, disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error. The orders dated 12.03.09 and 28.03.09, are, thus, illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the orders dated 12.03.09 and 28.03.09 (Annexures P9 and P10), are set aside. The case, is remitted back, to the trial Court, with a direction, to decide the matter, after the presentation of the cancellation report again with further investigation report, as ordered, by it, vide order dated 20.12.08, in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. The parties, are directed, to appear, in the trial Court, on 12.07.2010, at 10.00 AM sharp, for further proceedings. 8. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 25.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE