Criminal Misc.-M No. 33109 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 33109 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.01.2013 Jaswant Singh ......Petitioner Versus G.S. Baath and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC. The case set up by the complainant is that he had filed an application for restoration of water course. Summons were issued for 23.04.1997. The complainant alongwith one Shob Karan Singh were present. The Patwari who was brought along for serving summons in connivance with respondent No.1 had got the report issued. Surinder Singh-accused No.1 who was interested in this case as a respondent is alleged to have got a false inquiry report by making some cutting on the summons from 20.04.1997 to 20.03.1997. On this basis the complainant was proceeded ex parte. The appeal preferred by the complainant was dismissed. His claims is that he has suffered heavy loss due to this forgery. In addition accused No.1 Criminal Misc.-M No. 33109 of 2008 2 Surinder Singh had threatened him by showing revolver. The complainant reported the matter to the police. On the basis of preliminary statement as recorded, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malout summoned the respondents for an offence under Section 506 IPC. This had happened on 14.07.2007. Jaswant Singh filed a revision against the same which was allowed on 5.05.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Muktsar who has recorded a finding that no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was attracted. He, accordingly, dismissed the revision petition. Thereafter, the present petition was filed before this Court. During the pendency of this petition, respondent No.2 has reportedly died. The relief qua said respondent would abate. The petition qua respondent No.2, thus, would continue. Considering the fact that this is an old issue pertaining to the year 1997 and the sole respondent now left to face the proceeding has retired and was only summons for an offence under 506 IPC, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. January 11, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) reena JUDGE