NARINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C) for quashing/setting aside impugned judgment dated 22.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala in Criminal Revision No.CRR/65/2016 dismissing revision petition and affirming impugned order dated 14.09.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala in Criminal Complaint No.108 of 27.09.2011 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC) whereby complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner-complainant filed above-said criminal complaint on the averments that the petitioner-complainant was having three HP electric power connection from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vide account No.39/95, 9/348 and running one cotton fringing machine along with two small wheat flour machines.

(3.) The petitioner-complainant did not transfer the above-said connection in the name of any other person or request for adjustment of security in the name of Prabhdayal. Respondent-accused Rakesh Kumar in connivance with Prabhdayal forged the signatures of the petitioner-complainant on application dated 03.02.1992 submitted to Sub-Division Officer, Sub Urban, Barnala for transferring his electric connection in the name of Prabhdayal and managed to get his account closed. The respondent-accused cheated the petitioner-complainant by forging documents. The respondent-accused also sold 3 HP electric motor and cotton fringing and wheat flouring machines after stealing the same. Since no action was taken on the complaint made to the police, the complaint was filed. Preliminary evidence of the complainant was recorded. In his preliminary evidence, the petitioner-complainant examined himself as CW-1 and produced documents C-l to C-10. On consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner-complainant and perusal of the evidence produced by him, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala observed that evidence produced by the complainant was not sufficient enough to proceed further against the accused and dismissed the complaint. Revision Petition filed by the petitioner-complainant was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala.