1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2011. Date of decision: 21.09.2011. Rajiv Sood. ......Petitioner. Versus Dinesh Kumar. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Man Singh, Advocate vice Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , Judge( Oral). This revision is directed against the order dated 02.05.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Amb, in Cr.M.A. No. 57-IV-II in Case No. 137-I/2005/88-II/2010. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent has filed a complaint under Sections 420,467, 468 IPC against the petitioner in the year 2005. The respondent filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying therein re-examination of the complainant and examination of one Vijay Kumar as witness to prove written compromise dated 13.01.2011. It has been stated that during the pendency of the complaint, accused entered into a compromise with the complainant on 13.01.2011 in presence of witnesses and admitted that the complainant had given cheque No. 432943 to the accused in the year 2000. It has also been alleged in the application that accused misused the cheque by presenting the same to the bank. At the time of filing of the complaint and examination of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 complainant, compromise deed dated 13.01.2011 was not in existence. Vijay Kumar is the marginal witness of the compromise dated 13.01.2011 . Therefore, a prayer was made for re-examination of the complainant and examination of Vijay Kumar as witness. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has also filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent which is pending. 3. This application was opposed by the accused by filing reply. It has been alleged that compromise deed dated 13.01.2011 is a fabricated document which has been prepared under some illegal guidance and same is not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The learned Magistrate allowed the application on 02.05.2011, the complainant was given permission to lead additional evidence by way of re-examination of the complainant and examination of Vijay Kumar and to produce on record compromise deed dated 13.01.2011. The order dated 02.05.2011 has been assailed in the revision. In the revision petition, it has been stated that in case this Court is not inclined to exercise revisional jurisdiction , then the revision be treated a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the application, the complainant has alleged that compromise deed dated 13.01.2011 has come into existence after the filing of the complaint and when the complainant was examined at that time also compromise deed dated 13.01.2011 was not in existence and, therefore, compromise deed dated 13.01.2011 could not be brought on record. It has been stated that in order to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties, the 3 re-examination of the complainant and placing on record compromise deed dated 13.01.2011 is necessary. 5. The petitioner has taken the stand that the compromise deed dated 13.01.2011 is a forged document. The learned trial Magistrate has allowed placing on record compromise deed dated 13.01.2011, re-examination of complainant and examination of witness Vijay Kumar. The other side will get an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses when this material will come on record. In addition, at the appropriate stage,the petitioner shall also be at liberty to adduce defence evidence. The order dated 02.05.2011 has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court in allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of in view of disposal of the main petition. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. September 21, 2011. (Krt)