JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order, dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, District Kaithal, whereby the application presented by the prosecution/complainant, under Section 311, Cr.P.C., for leading additional evidence, was dismissed. Prayer has also been made to quash the order, dated 31.8.2012 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant, Jeet Singh, challenging the order Annexure P-2, was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that at the behest of the petitioner, FIR No. 69, dated 13.6.2000, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 470 and 471, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Guhla, District Kaithal. After investigation, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of which, respondent Nos. 2 to 4-accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, and thereafter the case was adjourned for recording of the prosecution evidence. Sufficient opportunities were afforded to the prosecution for completing its evidence, but at the time of closing of its evidence, an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C., was presented by the prosecution for leading additional evidence. Notice of the same was issued to the respondents-accused. The application was contested by way of filing a reply by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and ultimately the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure P-2). The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide order dated 31.8.2012 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the present petition by the complainant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contended that the findings recorded by the two Courts below were not legally tenable. He further contended that the learned Revisional Court had gone wrong in dismissing the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant mainly on the ground that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, was an interim order and against an interim order the criminal revision petition was not maintainable. He further argued that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had wrongly held that the petitioner, in the garb of the said application, tried to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case.