RAMINDER PAL SINGH KHURANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present petition has been preferred under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dtd. 16/1/2023 (Annexure P P-8) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana whereby the application under Sec. 216 Cr.P.C. was allowed in the case stemming from complaint bearing no. COMI/00248/2015 dat dtd. 29/1/2014 filed under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B 120 IPC.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.2 had previously filed FIR No.132 dtd. 10/6/2011 registered under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B B IPC at Police Station Division No.5 Ludhiana City alleging that the petitioner and his brother had forged his signatures and transferred his 7900 shares to some other persons. However, a cancellation report was presented when the FSL report concluded that the forged signatures on the transfer ransfer slip do not match the handwriting of the petitioner or his brother. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved the complaint (supra) and the learned trial Court summoned the petitioner and his brother for commission of offence under Sec. 420 IPC vide order order dtd. 18/11/2017 (Annexure P P-4). Charges were framed against the petitioner under Sec. 420 IPC vide order dtd. 1/6/2019 (Annexure P-5).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that neither the summoning order nor the order framing charges was ever challenge challenged by respondent No.2. The The application under Sec. 216 Cr.P.C. was moved by respondent No.2, No.2 after four years when charges were initially framed against the petitioner. Further, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that a cancellation report was was moved, on the basis of the conclusions drawn by the FSL, with respect to the FIR registered on the same allegations. Moreover, during investigation, it was realized that the amount for sale of 7900 shares, allegedly sold by the petitioner, petitioner was deposited in the account of respondent No.2. As such,, the learned trial Court has erred in entertaining the complaint (supra) as well as allowing the said application as no wrongful loss has been caused to respondent No.2.