CRM-M No.29446 OF 2011 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 14, 2011 Devinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order (Annexure P-9) and the summoning order dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure P-20). The facts, noticed in brief, are that father of the petitioner Iqbal Singh was tenant in a shop of the complainant. There was some litigation between the father of the petitioner and the landlord, ultimately leading to eviction of the tenant/father of the petitioner. The case set up by the petitioner is that his father handed over a vacant possession of the shop to the owner and, thus, the owner is in possession of the said shop. It is alleged that one Amarjit Singh had forged an agreement to sell in his favour on the basis of which he filed a civil suit, which, he subsequently withdrew. On learning about the CRM-M No.29446 OF 2011 (O&M) : 2 : agreement to sell, which, according to the complainant was forged one, respondent No.2 filed a representation to the police for registering the case for the forgery allegedly committed by said Amarjit Singh. As per the allegations, the petitioner and his father had connived with said Amarjit Singh and were instrumental in forging the agreement to sell. The police after investigation submitted a cancellation report, which was contested by respondent No.2 Mangat Ram. The trial Court, however, permitted the cancellation report to be treated as a complaint and allowed complainant to lead evidence in support of his allegations. In between, the trial Court changed track and directed the police to submit an additional report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. This action was challenged by Amarjit Singh by filing a Criminal Misc.Petition before this Court and the Court quashed this action of the trial Court. At the same time, liberty was granted to the trial Court to proceed with the proceedings in accordance with law from the stage, where the petitioner had been leading evidence in the complaint case. The complainant thereafter led his evidence and has also led evidence of some other witnesses, on the basis of which, the petitioner has now been summoned. This summoning order has now been challenged by the petitioner through the present petition. The main submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence, especially so of connivance under Section 107 IPC and hence the order summoning the petitioner is bad. I have been made to go through the statement given by the complainant. He has very categorically stated in his evidence that CRM-M No.29446 OF 2011 (O&M) : 3 : the forged agreement was prepared in consultation with Iqbal Singh (father of the petitioner) and the petitioner. Not only that, the allegation is that somebody was made to impersonate in place of the complainant and the same was got attested from Shashi Mohan Notary Public, Sunam. Even the stamp papers were purchased in the name of complainant, which, did not bear the signatures of the complainant. It would depend on the evidence which is led before the court, which would show whether there is any connivance on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, connivance on the part of petitioner is alleged. At this stage, this court is not to appreciate the value and worth of evidence. That is the job of the trial Court. This court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not act either as Court of appeal or revision. The court can not embark on an inquiry whether the evidence is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to cut short prosecution. This power is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. It has consistently been held by the court in number of judgments that Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an alternative of a trial. In this regard, reference can be made to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 233. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. October 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE