IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-4714 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17th March, 2009 Mahavir Tyagi … Petitioner Versus Ram Niwas and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that order dated 11th November, 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Sonepat be set aside, as Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Sonepat had dismissed the complaint and had not issued the process for service upon the respondents. The impugned order (Annexure P-2) was affirmed by the revisional Court vide Annexure P-4. This Court on 18th February, 2009 had noticed the following contention of the counsel for the petitioner: “Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) has dismissed the complaint on the ground that no documentary evidence has been produced to prove possession of the petitioner over the land, from where the bricks were stolen. Counsel further submits that at the time of summoning, only preliminary evidence was led and the Court ought to have believed the oral assertions made by the petitioner. Counsel says that this aspect has been overlooked by the Court Criminal Misc. No. M-4714 of 2009 (O&M) of Additional Sessions Judge, while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Issue notice of motion for 3rd March, 2009. Process dasti.” Mr. Bijender Dhankar has caused appearance for respondents No.1 to 6. I have heard counsel for the parties. Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Sonepat was well within her rights to dismiss the complaint in case the testimony of witnesses do not aspire confidence. Short grievance of the complainant petitioner is that for proving the possession, no document was necessary and factum of possession could be asserted by way of oral evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he can also prove his possession over the land by placing on record necessary documents. It has been stated that necessary documents were not placed before the trial Court under the belief that oral testimonies will suffice. Mr. Bijender Dhankar is unable to rebut this contention, but however, has stated that the present complaint has been instituted against the respondents as a counter-blast to civil litigation pending between the parties. Be that as it may, orders (Annexure P-2 and P-4) are set aside. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Sonepat is directed to formulate fresh opinion, considering the oral preliminary evidence led by the complainant. Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) shall also afford an opportunity to the complainant to lead further evidence to prove necessary documents, from which possession of the petitioner could be inferred on the disputed site. Anything said herein shall not be construed as an expression on merits of the case. Complainant petitioner shall 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-4714 of 2009 (O&M) appear before the trial Court on 17th April, 2009. Thereafter, if necessary, trial Court will afford an opportunity to the complainant petitioner to lead further evidence. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 17 2009 rps 3