Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh vs Harjit Singh on 15 October, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-29369 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 29369 of 2012
Date of decision : 15.10.2012
Rajinder Singh ......Petitioner
versus
Harjit Singh, ASI ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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. Dharm Chand Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J.
Crl. Misc. No.56388 of 2012 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No.M-29369 of 2012 Rajinder Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, vide which his complaint for an Crl. Misc. No.M-29369 of 2012 2 offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 204 IPC has been dismissed and the order dated 12.03.2012 ( Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in police force. According to him, a regular departmental enquiry proceeded against the petitioner and he was served with the order of punishment. According to him that order was unsigned and was of no consequence. According to him, he filed an appeal challenging the order dated 08.10.2002. According to him, Harjit Singh, ASI, the respondent was working as incharge departmental enquiries in the office of SSP, Police Head Quarter Sector-9, Chandigarh and he came to know that the order dated 08.10.2002 dispatched to the petitioner was not signed by the competent authority. According to him, in connivance with the other officials, he removed copy of the unsigned order from the file of the appeal submitted by the petitioner and getting the order signed from the competent authority, had annexed a copy of the signed order with the appeal, revealing that the signed copy was duly delivered to the Crl. Misc. No.M-29369 of 2012 3 petitioner. According to him, the respondent had forged the document and made himself liable to punishment under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code. He has further submitted that learned trial court has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner without any valid reason and learned Additional Sessions Judge has also dismissed his revision petition without assigning any valid reasons.
Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh after taking the preliminary evidence, considered the same and had found no prima-facie case made out therefrom. According to her, the complainant stepped into the witness box as CW-3 and had stated about his case. According to her, the case is that in the appeal he filed against the order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the SSP, UT Chandigarh, he had annexed a copy of unsigned order and in the process, it came to the notice of the respondent and he in connivance with the other officials removed the said document from the file and replaced it with a copy of duly signed document.
From the case set up by the complainant, it only appears that the order passed by the SSP, UT, Chandigarh on 08.10.2002 remained unsigned and a copy of the same was sent to the petitioner. It is also his case that he filed appeal annexing a copy of that unsigned order and during pendency of that appeal, the respondent came to Crl. Misc. No.M-29369 of 2012 4 know about it and he in connivance with other officials changed the same by replacing the same by a copy of signed order. It clearly shows that the contents of the order have remained the same. He has nowhere mentioned before filing this complaint that the order, a copy of which was given to him, was unsigned.
The complainant claims that in connivance with other officials, the respondent replaced the copy of unsigned order with a copy of signed order. His statement is based on surmises. He is not a witness to any such thing. He moreover, did not disclose as to what was the source of his information in this regard. The allegations of the petitioner supported by his statement were not sufficient to prove that the respondent forged the signatures of SSP, UT Chandigarh on the document and had removed the copy of the order annexed by the complainant in the appeal and replaced it with the copy of the signed order. The allegations are, therefore, quite vague. No offence seems to have been made out against the respondent.
The order of learned Magistrate has been examined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandgiarh and vide judgment dated 12.03.2012 found no perversity in the impugned order and consequently upheld the same.
Crl. Misc. No.M-29369 of 2012 5 For the reasons given above, I also find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition consequently lacks in merits and is dismissed as such October 15, 2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE