Crl. Misc. No. M-133 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-133 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 29,2011 Tirath Singh and another ........................ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) This petition is for quashing of order dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda whereby a direction has been given to inquire into the matter and register the FIR against the witnesses who has deposed falsely in the Court. The order dated 20.10.2010 is reproduced below:- “Jaswant Singh present in the court is examined as court witness no.3. But after examining these witnesses, this Court is of the Crl. Misc. No. M-133 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] considered view that by summoning the Court witnesses no benefit has been achieved. On the last date, owner of the bus Service Tirath Singh was examined who had deposed that during the alleged accident he was not managing the buses and it was under the control of his father Labh Singh who has already expired. But it is further added that during that period Jaswant Singh son of Bachan Singh was working with his father as Manager and he can depose on the matter. Further from his evidence this Court was of the considered view that this witness is suppressing something. Relying upon his version, that during the relevant period i.e. 11.6.2004 Jaswant Singh was managing the affairs of the Sainik Bus Service this court summoned him to examine him as court witness No.3, but this witness has given a totally contradictory version to Tirath Singh as he has deposed that he has never been appointed as Manager of Sainik Bus Service and he has taken the buses of Sainik Bus Service from 11.10.2008 on contract basis and he is totally unaware about the earlier affairs. From the perusal of the testimonies of these witnesses it is apparent that either of the two Crl. Misc. No. M-133 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] deposed falsely in the court, on oath so as to give favour to either of the partgies. Accordingly, this Court find it proper to direct SHO PS Kotwali to inquire into the matter and register the FIR against the witness who has deposed falsely in the Court and to report within one month. File be put upon 12.11.2010 for defence evidence and arguments. Sd/- Parinder Singh PCS JMIC/20.10.2010” Reply by way of affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, City-II and Traffic District Bathinda. In compliance of the order dated 18.4.2011 an inquiry was conducted by ASI Kanwar Jaswinder Singh, Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda. He recorded the statements of both the petitioners. Petitioner No.2-Jaswant Singh has stated that he is old and due to old age he has problem of memory loss and could not tell with regard the driver of the bus. He was not aware of the date and time of accident. He is a senior citizen and feel sorry but has not misguided the Court. On the date of the accident the bus was being driven by Pritam Singh son of Jagrup Singh. From the inquiry it was found that the petitioners were not managing and controlling the affairs of the bus because Labh Singh and Jaswant Singh were running the business of the buses jointly and Tirath Singh is doing agricultural work and is not aware Crl. Misc. No. M-133 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] about the occurrence on the relevant date. After preparation of the report on 2.12.2010 which is to be submitted before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, this report has been recommended by the SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, on 12.4.2011 (Annexure R1). In view of the report filed by the SHO, no further orders are required to be passed. Criminal miscellaneous is disposed of. 29.4.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE