[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Singh vs Amar Singh And Anr. on 27 April, 2026
CRR-3307-2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-3307-2014 (O&M)
Raj Kumar Singh (since deceased) through his LRs ...Petitioner
Versus
Amar Singh and another ...Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Jayender Singh Chandail, Advocate
for the petitioner/LRs.
Mr. Ankush Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Abhyudaya Paliwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
(since deceased) against the order dated 02.07.2014, passed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by
the petitioner against the order dated 14.06.2011, passed by the learned trial
CRR-3307-2014 (O&M) -2-
Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section
195(1)(b) and 340 of Cr.P.C., had been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose are that one
Premwati, who owned several properties in villages Ramgarh, Bhanu and
Amrala, had filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Court of learned
Sub-Judge, Ambala. Premwati had died in the year 1994 during pendency of
the said suit. She was issueless. The petitioner moved an application for
impleading himself as legal heir of Premwati in the abovementioned suit.
However, the respondents claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of
Premwati on the basis of a Will dated 01.07.1993. In the said suit, it was
concluded by the learned trial Court that the Will relied upon by the
respondents was a forged document. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
application bearing No. 75 of 2005 under Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 of
Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate making prayer for prosecuting
the respondents for commission of offences punishable under Sections 193,
196, 463, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Vide order dated 14.06.2011, the
said application had been dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, which too was dismissed, vide
impugned order 02.07.2014.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned orders, as passed by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate as well
as the learned appellate Court, are not sustainable in the eyes of law as there
was ample material on record to prove that the respondents had prepared a
CRR-3307-2014 (O&M) -3-
forged and fabricated Will purported to be issued by deceased Premwati and
had used the same before the Court concerned in order to give false
evidence. It is also submitted that both the Courts did not apply their
judicious mind and committed grave error in dismissing the
application/appeal filed by the petitioner. It is, thus, argued that the petition
deserves to be accepted, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and
the application moved by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued that this
petition is not maintainable as the impugned order passed by the learned
appellate Court is not revisable under the provisions of Section 341(2) of
Cr.P.C. It is, thus, stressed that on the grounds of maintainability itself, the
petition is liable to be dismissed. To buttress their argument, learned counsel
for the respondents have relied upon the authorities cited as Lalit Mohan
Mondal and others vs. Benoyendra Nath Chatterjee, 1982 (3) SCC 219 and
Nemi Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, Law Finder Doc Id #374663.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. Admittedly and evidently, the petitioner (now represented
through LRs) had filed an appeal against the order passed by the
jurisdictional Magistrate and the said appeal had been dismissed by the
learned appellate Court by passing the impugned order dated 02.07.2014.
Thereafter, he filed this revision petition challenging the order dated
02.07.2014. Section 341(2) of Cr.P.C. very clearly says that any order
passed by the appellate Court under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. shall be final
and shall not be revisable. In the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for
CRR-3307-2014 (O&M) -4-
the respondents also, it was observed that the order passed in an appeal
under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C. is not revisable. It is, thus, clear that the
petition is not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed on the
grounds of maintainability.
27.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
