Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Sumeet Sofat vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041663
2024:PHHC:041663
CRM-M-13247-2024 -1-
(129) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13247-2024
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
DR. SUMEET SOFAT
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Dr. Sumeet Sofat
petitioner-in-person.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Sections 482/483 Cr.P.C.
is for quashing of the order of the JMIC, Ludhiana dated 02.03.2023
(Annexure P-1) and the order passed by the DSJ, Ludhiana dated 11.04.2023
(Annexure P-2).
2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.283 dated 17.10.2008
under Sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 201, 120-B, Police Station Division No.5,
Ludhiana was lodged against the petitioner/accused and others. The
petitioner/accused moved an application before the Trial Court to place on
record the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 passed in civil proceedings
by the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ludhiana and for dropping criminal
proceedings and acquitting the accused in view of the said judgment
contending that the findings of the Civil Court were binding upon the
criminal Courts and as the Civil Court had decided in his favour, he ought to
be acquitted.
3. The Trial Court held that the judgment and decree dated
22.12.2016 had already been exhibited in defence evidence. The question of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041663
2024:PHHC:041663
acquitting the petitioner/accused at that stage on the basis of the judgment
and decree passed by the Civil Court did not arise as the effect of the said
judgment on criminal proceedings would be seen in the context of Sections
40, 41, 42 & 43 of the Indian Evidence Act at the stage of final adjudication
moreso when the case was posted for defence evidence and one witness in
defence has already been examined. The Trial Court also found that the
petitioner/accused had availed multiple opportunities for leading defence
evidence by moving one application or the other to delay the matter. He
therefore dismissed the prayer for acquittal of the accused/petitioner vide his
judgment dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure P-1).
4. The petitioner preferred a revision-petition before the Court of
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the Revisional Court also held that the
question of discharge of the accused at the stage of defence evidence did not
arise and the evidentiary value of the Civil Court judgment would be
adjudicated upon by the Trial Court at the stage of final arguments. It also
found that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and thus, the
revision petition was not maintainable. The copy of the order passed by the
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 11.04.2023 is attached as Annexure P-2 to
the present petition.
5. The aforementioned orders are under challenge in the present
petition.
6. The petitioner-in-person contends that once the Civil Court had
arrived at a finding regarding the property in question in favour of the
petitioner, the Trial Court ought to have dropped proceedings as the FIR had
been registered on the same basis. The provisions of the Evidence Act made
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041663
2024:PHHC:041663
judgments in civil cases binding on Criminal Courts and therefore, the Courts
below had erroneously dismissed the application for dropping proceedings.
7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that no
fault can be found with the impugned orders. The evidentiary value of the
judgment passed by Civil Court would be examined by the Trial Court at the
stage of final arguments and the question of dropping proceedings when
defence evidence was going on did not arise.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Admittedly, the FIR pertains to the year 2008. The judgment and
decree dated 22.02.2016 has already been exhibited in defence in the Trial
emanating out of FIR No.283 dated 17.10.2008 under Sections 465, 468,
469, 471, 201, 120-B, Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. The said Trial
is at its fag-end with defence witnesses being examined. At this stage, the
question of discharge/dropping of proceedings would not arise and the
relevance of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 would be examined
and adjudicated upon by the Trial Court at the stage of final arguments.
10. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the well-
reasoned orders of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court and
therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.
11. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial as expeditiously
as possible but in any case not later than two months from the next date fixed
before it.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
21.03.2024 JUDGE
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
