Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2010 Date of Decision: 03.08.2010 Jagdish Kaur daughter of Shingara Singh, r/o P.O. Box No. 61463, 8134, Kaito, Pafass, Cyprus, at present residing at village Dhulkot Rausi, Tehsil Nihalsinghwala, District Ludhiana. ... Petitioner Versus Jaideep Singh son of Lakha Singh, r/o Thatian Mahantaan, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. D.S. Sobti, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing Complaint No. 68 of 20.08.04, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Sarhali, Tehsil Tarn Taran (Annexure P1), the summoning order dated 20.04.05 (Annexure P7), passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The complainant, claimed that, he was adopted by Shingara Singh, by way of adoption deed. The sons and daughters of Shingara Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2010 2 Singh, after his death, did not make a mention of the adoption of the complainant, before Assistant Collector, Grade-II, at the time of sanction of mutation of his inheritance. It was stated that, the accused, got the mutation of inheritance of Shingara Singh, sanctioned, on the basis of the forged Will. Accordingly, a complaint, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, was filed. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran, summoned the accused and her co-accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 420 IPC. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, no doubt, CRM No. 44308-M of 2006, for quashing the complaint and further proceedings, was filed, by Balkar Singh and Gurmukh Singh, co- accused, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points, before the trial Court. He further submitted that, the petitioner, also filed CRM No. 31342-M of 2007, for quashing the complaint and the subsequent proceedings, which was dismissed, vide order dated 16.01.09, on merits. He further submitted that, now the petitioner, has come to know, that the complainant and the petitioners, in CRM No. 44308-M of 2006, connived with each other and entered into an illegal compromise dated 26.06.07. He further submitted that, a Civil Suit, was filed, by the petitioner and her other siblings, against the complainant/respondent, in which, the petitioner Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2010 3 and her siblings, were found, to be in possession of the land, vide judgement dated 29.01.09. He further submitted that, the mutation, on the basis whereof, the complaint, was filed, has been held to be legal and valid. He further submitted that continuance of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings, thus, being an abuse of process of the Court, are liable to be quashed. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, being not maintainable, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Two co- accused of the present petitioner, filed CRM No. 44308-M of 2006, claiming the same relief, which has been claimed, in the instant petition. It was dismissed, on 31.07.08 as withdrawn, but, liberty, was granted, to them, to raise all the points, before the trial Court, at the appropriate time. Not only this, CRM No. 31342-M of 2007, was filed, by the petitioner, seeking the same relief, as has been claimed, in the present petition. That petition, was dismissed, by this Court, vide order dated 16.01.09, on the ground, that the dismissal of the quashing petition, bearing CRM No. 44308-M of 2006, was a legal impediment, in the way of the petitioner. Once, earlier petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner, seeking the same relief, was dismissed, vide order dated 16.01.09, in my considered opinion, the present petition, is not at all maintainable. In case, the present petition, is allowed, that would amount to review of the order dated 16.01.09. Section 362 Cr.P.C., clearly lays down, that no Court, can Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2010 4 review, alter or modify its order, once it has been signed. In State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair, AIR, 2001, 2145 (SC), it was held that, in view of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C., no Criminal Court, can review its own judgement, or order. In that case, by the first order, the High Court, rejected the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings. The order attained finality. Vide subsequent order dated 13.07.2000, in a miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, the earlier order, was reviewed, and, the proceedings, were quashed. The order dated 13.07.2000, was challenged, in the Apex Court. The Apex Court, set aside the order dated 13.07.2000 of the High Court, holding that, sine the earlier order, dismissing the petition, had attained finality, the subsequent order, reviewing the same, was illegal, being contrary to the express provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable, to the facts of this case. The petition, is, thus, liable to be dismissed, being not maintainable. 7. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2010, is dismissed, being not maintainable. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 8. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned immediately. 03.08.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE