IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.47942-M of 2007 Date of Decision:8.3.2011 Shabnam and others .... Petitioner Versus Lukman .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint i.e. Annexure P-6 dated 16.8.2005, under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC and Annexure P-7 i.e. summoning order dated 10.12.2005 passed by the learned Court of Shri. Sudhir Parmar, JMIC, Gurgaon. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners had tampered with the order dated 20.5.2005 by deleting the word “declined” from the copy of the order which was given to the police thereby giving the impression that the defendant had been restrained from getting married with Rashmina. It was alleged in the complaint that on 22.5.2005 when the complainant alongwith his family members reached at Shamdika for the purpose of Nikah with Rashmina then he was stopped by Laxman ASI of P.S. Jurehera District Bharatpur and the police also showed the copy of stay order regarding the second marriage of complainant. The complainant was also lifted by police and lateron he was released after Crl. M. No.47942-M of 2007 -2- being humiliated by the police of Jurehera. After that the complainant came to know that Sabnam had filed a civil suit in this Court and in that very case Sabnam tried to take stay order from this court but her submission was declined by this court on 20.5.2005. It is further the case of the complainant that Sabnam and his family members in collusion with their Advocate tampered the order of this court dated 20.5.2005 and present the same before the police officials and in this way the above named accused persons have committed offence, therefore, complainant had filed the present complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, while praying for quashing of the said complaint has raised the following arguments: (a) The complaint in question is counter blast to the various cases filed by the petitioners against the respondent. (b) The order dated 20.5.2005 is very much clear in itself and a bare perusal of the same shows that in no way, it means that the respondent is restrained from marrying with Rashmina. Hence, not even a single line of the order means or senses that there is stay from performing the second marriage. (c) The word “declined” which was missing in the second last line of the certified copy of the order is on account of typographical error. Heard. It is not the case of the petitioners that the word “declined” is not mentioned in the original order dated 20.5.2005. In fact, it is specifically stated that the word “declined” is very much in the original order dated 20.5.2005. The argument that the word “declined” is missing on account of Crl. M. No.47942-M of 2007 -3- typographical error in the certified copy of the order cannot be believed at this stage as the certified copy of the order has not been placed on record. Only, photo copy of the said order has been handed over. In the photo copy of the said order, the word “declined” is missing. The question at present is not as to whether the reading of the order even without the word “declined” senses a stay from performing the second marriage or not but the issue herein is as to whether the word “declined” is specifically deleted from the certified copy of the order or whether the same is typographical error. Since, the word “declined” is very relevant, the allegation cannot be brushed aside. The said allegation can be proved and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be substantiated only in trial and the evidence produced before it. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court shall proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible and complete the same within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8.3.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE