NARATI DEVI Vs. JEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition on formal admission can be disposed of at this very stage.

(2.) THE petitioner Narati Devi filed a criminal complaint against the accused-respondents that the will set up by them in a civil suit was a forged and fabricated one. After recording preliminary evidence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra summoned the accused to face trial Pre-charge evidence was led in the presence of the accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 9.9.1985 came to hold the view that no case had been made out against any of the accused for the commission of the offences and that the evidence led by the complainant, even if it went unrebutted, was not likely to lead to eviction. He accordingly discharged the accused.

(3.) THAT there is no such bar, as conversely spelled but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) Recent CR 481 : 1986(2) PLR 339. In other words, the Criminal Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and make a decision thereon. So, the foundation of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra stands knocked off. Inevitably his orders needs to be and is hereby set aside remitting the matter back to him for re-decision on facts since the revision petition was admitted by him and a decision on merits is the legitimate due.