Crl. Misc. No.M-8736 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-8736 of 2011 Date of Decision: 22.03.2011 Angrez Singh ....Petitioner Versus Sher Singh ....Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Parminder 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. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 19.11.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal and order dated 21.02.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been ordered to be closed and the respondent has been discharged. FIR No.133 of 1998 under Sections 323, 379, 411 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the respondent. After investigation, the cancellation report was submitted. The petitioner raised objections and the complaint was treated as protest petition. After recording preliminary evidence, the respondents were summoned by the Magistrate vide order dated 11.05.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner was given three opportunities to record his pre-charge evidence. The petitioner did not record any pre- Crl. Misc. No.M-8736 of 2011 2 charge evidence and as such, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and the respondent was discharged. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed revision petition. The said revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 21.02.2011. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C challenging the impugned order dated 19.11.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal and order dated 21.02.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been ordered to be closed and the respondent has been discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the matter was being compromised and moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner was busy in some other case, the witness could not be examined on 19.11.2009. Moreover, the petitioner was pursuing his rights right upto High Court and as such, the claiming of his pre-charge evidence has caused him prejudice. Heard. Second revision is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition is nothing but a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. No doubt, it is a well settled proposition of law that this Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C only in case of miscarriage of injustice or misuse of process of law but no such ground has been pointed out which may enable this Court to interfere in the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, as well as, the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The contentions, as raised herein, were also raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before the Revisional Court. The contentions were found to be not sustainable in view of the zimini orders recorded by the Courts on the respective dates. On 03.09.2009, the matter was adjourned for pre-charge Crl. Misc. No.M-8736 of 2011 3 evidence for 26.09.2009 and specific direction was passed that since it is an old case, two effective opportunities, each shall be given to the parties to conclude their respective evidence. On 26.09.2009, the complainant’s evidence was not present and the case was adjourned to 29.10.2009 at his request and the Court also ordered that last opportunity is granted. In spite of the same, on 29.10.2009, learned counsel for the complainant made a statement that the matter is being compromised. Accordingly, it was adjourned to 19.11.2009. At the same time, the parties were cautioned by the following order :- “ To come up on 19.11.2009 for compromise, if any failing which the evidence of the complainant shall deemed to be closed.” Whereas, the conduct of the petition is evident from the order dated 19.11.2009. On 19.11.2009, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal was forced to record the following observation ; “ The complainant has been appearing before this court since morning each time the case has been called. Moreover, he has been delaying the proceedings on the pretext that his counsel is not available and that the counsel will be coming in few minutes. Despite the fact that the entire working day is over, Shri D.K. Bhandari, Advocate has not appeared before this Court. The complainant has declined to make any statement before this court despite being present. Today was the last opportunity granted to the complainant to conclude his pre-charge evidence.” Taking note of the above observation, the Sessions Judge, Karnal rightly did not interfere in the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, vide which, the evidence of the petitioner was closed. The matter pertains to the year 1999. Specific directions were issued that the matter is of the year 1999 and, therefore, only two effective opportunities will be given. The petitioner was granted Crl. Misc. No.M-8736 of 2011 4 three opportunities. Still, he prayed for another adjournment to enable him to enter into compromise. The said adjournment was granted subject to the condition that if the matter is not compromised, the evidence will be recorded. No compromise was effected and nor was any evidence produced. Obviously, the petitioner is only using delaying tactics and wants to keep the sword hanging unnecessarily on the head of the respondent. In fact, allowing the petitioner another opportunity to lead evidence will only perpetuate the injustice being caused to the respondent through the tactics being used by the petitioner. Moreover, it is an admitted position that three opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, whereas, the matter is pending since the year 1999. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 22.03.2011 JUDGE gurpreet