(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for setting aside order dated 01.07.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonepat in Criminal Case No.583/1 of 2007 titled 'State Vs. Vijay Pal and others' arising out of FIR No.184 dated 24.07.2007 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.') at Police Station City Sonepat.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of the petition are that M.K. Goyal, Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Sonepat submitted written complaint alleging that accused-Vijay Pal Singh, who was owner of the premises taken on rent by the abovesaid bank, approached the above-said Branch for availing credit facilities for issuance of Kissan Credit Gold Card for agricultural purposes. The bank acceded to his request and granted him credit facility for amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 20.06.2003. Accused-Vijay Pal Singh again approached the bank on several occasions for grant of credit facilities to the following persons:-
(3.) While the case was pending for defence evidence and arguments, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat observed that at the time of recording of his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., M.K. Goyal, Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Sonepat had handed over photostat copies of the documents produced by the 18 accused persons to the bank at the time of availing loan and had undertaken that he will produce the original record in the Court at the time of his testimony. The testimony of complainant-M.K. Goyal was recorded on 23.09.2013 but he did not produce original record in the Court. The Investigating Officer Satbir Singh (retired Inspector) tendered photostat copies of the documents during his testimony but admitted during his cross-examination that he had not seen the original documents. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat further observed that the accused persons had executed mortgage deed in favour of the complainant-Bank but the prosecution did not cite the concerned Registry Clerk of the office of Sub-Registrar, Sonepat as witness to prove the mortgage deeds. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat considered re-examination of PW1 M.K. Goyal to be necessary to prove the original record of documents produced by the 18 accused and examination of the concerned Registry Clerk of the office of Sub-Registrar, Sonepat to be essential for just decision of the case. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat accordingly ordered summoning of PW1 M.K. Goyal, Branch Manager for his re-examination to prove the original record of the documents produced by the accused persons to the bank at the time of availing loan and concerned Registry Clerk, office of Sub-Registrar, Sonepat for production of the record of mortgage deeds photostat copies of which were placed on record as Mark-H, Mark-M, Mark-Q, Mark-Y, Mark-A3, Mark-A-8 Mark-A12, Mark-A15, Mark-A20, Mark-A25 and Mark-A29.