MADANJIT SINGH Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has been directed against the order dated 20.8.1996 passed by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, who dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant Madanjit Singh when he wanted to place on record a DDR which was recorded in Police Station Kotwali, Sangrur at the instance of Smt. Nasib Kaur respondent No. 2. The prayer is further that the complainant may be allowed to prove that DDR from which it is prima facie established that the witnesses relied upon by the complainant were present at the spot and that the occurrence has also taken place in the manner as stated by the complainant. This request of the petitioner was opposed by the accused and vide impugned order the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was declined with the following order :-

(2.) I have heard Shri Baldev Singh Sr. Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sh. G.S. Punia, Advocate for respondent and with their assistance I have gone through the impugned order.

(3.) AFTER considering the rival contentions of the parties this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is liable to be dismissed because the petitioner cannot be allowed to take the advantage by filling the lacunas of the case. In para No. 12 of the complaint it has been specifically alleged by the complainant himself that the accused party went to Police Station Kotwali Sangrur and lodged a report. On the same day, the complainant also went to the Police Station and it cannot be believed that the complainant did not know that the opposite party had earlier lodged his report in the police station. Inspite of the fact that it was to the knowledge of the complainant about lodging the report he did not take any step at any stage of the proceedings to produce that document. The lacunas of the criminal case cannot be allowed to be filled under the garb of Section 482 Cr.PC. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. However, directions are given to the trial Court to expedite the proceedings as the complaint was filed as back as in the year 1985.