CRM No.M-32237 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-1.11.2010 Krishan Pal ...Petitioner Versus Balvinder Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner-complainant filed a private complaint (Annexure P1) against the respondents-accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The trial Magistrate dismissed the same, by virtue of impugned order dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure P2). 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Magistrate, the petitioner-complainant filed the revision petition, which was dismissed as well by the revisional Court, vide impugned judgment dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure P3). 3. The petitioner-complainant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned order/judgment of the Courts below and filed the present second revision petition in the garb of section 482 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 5. As is evident from the record that having completed all the codal CRM No.M-32237 of 2010(O&M) 2 formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint (Annexure P1). Not only that, the revisional Court has also dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner, vide impugned judgment (Annexure P2), the operative part of which is as under :- “At the outset, it is revealed that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. It is a settled law that criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The magistrate before summoning the accused is to examine the nature of allegations as well as the evidence led on record. He has to analyze whether the complainant would succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. Reference may be made towards Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749. As per the revisionist, the respondent No.1 has instituted suit for specific performance on the basis of the alleged agreement executed between the parties. Now the question arises as to whether the civil suit instituted by respondent No.1 is in fact based upon the execution allegedly carried out by the respondent no.1 or not. The alleged signature of the revisionist therefore shall be subject to scrutiny before the Ld. Civil Court. The expert report which has been obtained by the revisionist shall also be subject to the scrutiny before civil court. The witnesses of the agreement shall also be subject to examination and cross-examination. The matter in my view thus can be analyzed in more effective manner before Ld. Civil Court. In these circumstances, it is concluded that the ld. lower court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the revisionist. No interference in the impugned order is needed. The revision petition fails and is dismissed.” 6. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have recorded the valid grounds in the impugned order/judgment. Such articulated order/judgment containing the valid reasons cannot legally be set aside in second revision (which is otherwise barred under section 397 (3) Cr.PC) under the garb of section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order/judgment of the Courts below. CRM No.M-32237 of 2010(O&M) 3 7. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 1.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge