Crl. Revision No. 1865 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1865 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 12, 2010 Vijay Kumar ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, whereby the respondents No.2 to 4 were discharged from the charge. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, while discharging the respondents No.2 to 4 has held as under :- “After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and on careful perusal of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. statements recorded, inquiry conducted by the Police Officers and the report submitted by Naib Tehsildar, copy of power of attorney and the sale deeds executed, it is not at all disputed that Dharminder Kumar being the owner had Crl. Revision No. 1865 of 2009 2 executed the power of attorney in favour of Bharat Bhushan and sale deeds have also been executed by Bharat Bhushan and copies of which have also been appended and on the said sale deeds, photograph which has been appended is that of Bharat Bhushan in whose favour power of attorney as per the assistance rendered had been executed. No doubt the photograph on the power of attorney is that of Navraj, and qua the said fact an application had been moved by Dharminder Kumar owner to Naib Tehsildar with regard to the fact that photograph due to inadvertence had been appended of Navraj on the power of attorney of Bhart Bhushan, though the power of attorney was in favour of Bharat Bhushan. Perusal of the documents as a whole, coupled with factum that application had been moved by Dharminder Kumar, the owner for bringing the said fact to the notice of the Naib Tehsildar, what offence can be taken to have been committed by Dharminder Kumar, who in real sense could have been aggrieved? Navraj whose photograph had been appended, but no sale deed has been executed by him and Bharat Bhushan in whose favour the power of attorney had been executed though photograph of Navraj had been appended and the sale deeds have been executed by none other than Bharat Bhushan, rather perusal of documents as a whole, coupled with detailed raport submitted by Naib Tehsildar as to appending of wrong photograph on the power of attorney and application had been moved by Dharminder Kumar himself for rectifying the said defect, it Crl. Revision No. 1865 of 2009 3 was with the endorsement that the Naib Tehsildar had returned the application as to there being no provision under law for rectifying the said defect qua photograph. On perusal of the documents as a whole, coupled with the provisions enshrined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. the court is of the considered opinion that there is considerable merits in the submission put forth by learned Defence counsel, as a person who is an aggrieved would only allow the person who has done wrong to him to go Scott free. On perusal of the entire documents and the sequence thereof, one thing is abundantly clear that it is nothing but a mistake and that too a bonafide one which is apparent from moving of the application by Dharminder Kumar and that too at the right stage when there was nothing against them, though due to inadvertence the photograph of Navraj had been appended on the power of attorney in place of Bharat Bhushan and the sale deeds have been executed, copies of which are appended by none other than Bharat Bhushan in whose favour power of attorney was actually executed. The court is of the considered opinion that there is no prima facie material for going with the trial against the accused and it is only when the material which is on the file prima facie strengthens as to commission of said offence, thus, taking into note the totality of the facts, coupled with due assistance rendered, the court is of the opinion that there is no prima facie material for framing of charge against the accused, the same being groundless, hence, all the accused are hereby Crl. Revision No. 1865 of 2009 4 discharged. File be consigned to the Record Room, Jalandhar.” The reasons given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate while discharging the respondents No.2 to 4 are sound reasons. Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that the occurrence was due to bona fide mistake and hence no prima facie case was made out to proceed against the accused. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) May 12, 2010 JUDGE Anand