CRL.M.NO.18919-M of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.M.NO.18919-M of 2010(O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 6.7.2010 Sanjeev Kumar .....Petitioner vs. Ravinder Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J Crl.M.No.33387 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.18919-M of 2010 Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing impugned order dated 8.6.2009 (P.1) passed by ld. JMIC, Kurukshetra whereby the pre-charge evidence of the petitioner-complainant was closed; further prayer is for quashing order dated 18.8.2009 (P.2) whereby the revision petition filed against order dated 8.6.2009 (P.1) was dismissed as withdrawn. The prayer is also for quashing order dated 19.1.2010 (P.3) whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner-complainant for examining Sh. N.K. Jain, Expert was dismissed and the revisional order dated 21.5.2010 (P.4) whereby the revision filed against the same was also dismissed as not maintainable. It is alleged that the respondents by entering into conspiracy had got suffered a collusive decree on 10.6.1992 in their favour from Bhagti Devi/maternal grand-mother of the petitioner by impersonating some other lady in place of said Bhagti Devi. When this fact came to the knowledge of CRL.M.NO.18919-M of 2010(O&M) #2# the petitioner, he filed a civil suit challenging the said decree as well as the present complaint against the respondents in the year 2002 wherein respondents were summoned under Sections 465/468/471/474/120-B IPC. It is averred that in order to prove the fact of impersonation, the thumb impressions of Bhagti Devi, on several documents in the decree proceedings, were got compared by the petitioner from Sh. N.K. Jain, handwriting expert and he gave his opinion that the thumb impressions in question did not tally with the standard thumb impressions of late Smt Bhagti Devi. It is claimed that by mistake Sh. Mani Jain, son of said N.K. Jain, who is also handwriting expert was inadvertently summoned and, therefore, the necessity of summoning Sh. N.K. Jain to prove his report arose. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that ample opportunities had been granted to the petitioner-complainant to lead his evidence. Complaint is pending since 2002 and the petitioner- complainant had availed of 12 opportunities and despite last opportunity, he failed to conclude his evidence. Resultantly, evidence was rightly closed by ld. JMIC on 8.6.2009. The reasoning adopted by ld. JMIC, Kurukshetra while dismissing the application under Secion 311 Cr.P.C also cannot be faulted as it is evident that the witness, namely, Sh. N.K. Jain was throughout in the knowledge of the complainant and, therefore, it does not suffer from any illegality. At the time of arguments, no plausible explanation has been given for not concluding the evidence in time. Dismissed. July 06, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE