Criminal Misc. No.M.36080 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.68476 of 2011 & Criminal Misc. No.M.36080 of 2011 Decided on 15.12.2011. Jaswinder Singh etc. ...... Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab .. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :- Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners. K.C.PURI, J. Criminal Misc. No.M.68476 of 2011 Criminal Misc. No.M.68476 of 2011 stands allowed. Copy of FIR Ex.P-7 is ordered to be taken on record subject to all just exceptions. MAIN CASE Challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) is order dated 2.9.2011 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the revision preferred by the petitioner against order dated 22.12.2010 Annexure P-1 for summoning the petitioner as additional accused was dismissed, Criminal Misc. No.M.36080 of 2011 2 2. Briefly stated the law was set in motion by recording the FIR No.74 dated 15.7.2004 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) against the accused persons that they with the motive to cheat and defraud the complainant got the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- and passport by giving the assurance to send Swaran Singh and Jaspal Singh to Japan but had not sent rather harassed by preparing the forged and fabricated visa and sent them to Bombay/Mumbai and have committed the offence of forgery, breach of trust, cheating etc and now instead of returning the amount, threatening to cause huge loss to the property of the complainant. 3. During the investigation, the petitioners were declared innocent and challan against Ranbir Singh and Rajdeep Singh was presented. During the pendency of the trial, complainant made his statement and thereafter an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the present petitioners as an accused. The learned trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2010 Annexure P-1 summoned the present petitioners as additional accused. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 22.12.2010 summoning the petitioners as additional accused, the present petitioners filed revision petition. Shri D.P.Singla, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 2.9.2011 dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioners against the order of summoning as additional accused. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by Shri H.K.Sidhu, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib and order dated 2.9.2011 passed by Shri D.P.Singla, Additional Sessions Judge, Criminal Misc. No.M.36080 of 2011 3 Fatehgarh Sahib, referred to above, the present petition has been filed for quashing both these orders. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after due investigation, the petitioners have been declared innocent. All the family members have been involved. In fact Rajdeep alone was working as travelling agent. The amount for sending abroad was paid to him. The present petitioners have been impleaded simply being their relatives. Rajdeep Singh was disowned by Jaswinder Singh in the year 1999. So, prayer has been made for setting aside both these orders. 7. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. 6. From the bear reading of FIR, referred to above, it reveals that specific attribution has been made against all the petitioners. The amount has been arranged by the complainant by selling his land. The investigation portion cannot be taken as gospel truth in the presence of statement of the complainant in the FIR as well as in the Court. Rajdeep Singh has been sought to be declared proclaimed offender. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that case for trial against the petitioners in the above said FIR is made out. It cannot be prima facie said that in case the evidence taken as it is, would not ultimately lead to conviction. Complainant has been deprived of huge amount and there are specific attribution in the FIR. The defence that Rajdeep Singh has been disinherited can be appreciated during the course of trial. So, in these circumstances no case is made out for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. No.M.36080 of 2011 4 8. So, in these circumstances, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out and the same stands dismissed. December 15, 2011 ( K.C. PURI ) sv JUDGE