Dalip Singh vs State Of Punjab
2021 Latest Caselaw 2978 P&H

CRM-M-43029-2021                                           -1-

126
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                                CRM-M-43029-2021
                                                Date of decision : 13.10.2021

Dalip Singh

                                                                   ...Petitioner

                                       Versus

State of Punjab

                                                                 ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


Present:      Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

              Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with
              Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate and
              Mr. Siddharth Bhukkal, Advocate and
              Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

              (Through Video Conferencing)

              ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing of impugned order dated 20.08.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by

the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, in FIR No.6 dated 16.03.2017

registered under Sections 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at

Police Station PS NRI, District Jalandhar Rural (Annexure P-1).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

1 of 4

complainant had filed an application through APP under Section 311 of

Cr.P.C. for examination of Dalip Singh son of Sajjan Singh, which has

been rejected vide impugned order dated 20.08.2021 (Annexure P-3). He

has further submitted that in the present case, the alleged power of

attorney has been executed by Dalip Singh son of Sajjan Singh and thus,

his evidence is very relevant for the purpose of the present case inasmuch

as, the signatures of the said Dalip Singh on the power of attorney is to be

compared with his standard signatures. He has further submitted that

although, there is a delay in the matter but has relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N. Patil Vs. K. Niranjan Kumar and

others, (2021) 3 SCC 661, to submit that a relevant piece of evidence can

be produced at any stage of the proceedings.

Notice of motion.

On advance notice, Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab,

appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr.

Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth

Bhukkal, Advocate, and Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate appears on

behalf of the complainant and have submitted that they are fully prepared

to argue the matter and have opposed the present petition.

It has been submitted by the Senior Counsel for the

complainant that in fact, a perusal of the FIR would show that it is not

even the version of the attorney of the complainant who has got the FIR

registered that the signatures on the power of attorney of the said Dalip

Singh are forged or fabricated and in fact, the version is that the said

2 of 4

Dalip Singh had not read the power of attorney before signing it. It has

been further argued that as per the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, oral evidence contrary to the written terms of

the agreement is not admissible. It is further submitted that the present

application has been moved only to delay the matter inasmuch as the

petitioner is in Uganda and although, the FIR is of the year 2017 but the

petitioner has never chosen to join the proceedings.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court has put it to the learned counsel for the petitioner

that, in case evidence of the petitioner-Dalip Singh is allowed, then how

much time would it take for the petitioner-Dalip Singh to appear before

the trial Court so that no further delay is caused in the trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner-Dalip Singh would present himself within a period of two

weeks from today so that he could be duly examined.

In the present case, although, there is a delay in the matter on

the petitioner's part but, keeping in view the totality of the facts and

circumstances, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

V.N. Patil's case (Supra), the present petition is disposed of with the

observations that one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner

to present himself before the trial Court within a period of two weeks

from today and in case, the petitioner appears within the said time and

present himself for evidence, the trial Court is directed to record the

evidence of the petitioner on a day to day basis and complete the

3 of 4

aforesaid evidence of the petitioner including his cross-examination, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of five days from the

date of his appearance.

It is made clear that in case, the petitioner does not appear

before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today, then the

present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would

proceed independently of the observations made in the present case.

13.10.2021                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                4 of 4