MANDEEP SINGH Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Mandeep Singh has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner along with co-accused Manisha Wagle, seeking comparison of their standard hand writing/signatures on the affidavit with their signatures on power of attorney filed before this Court in CRM-M-41239-2018, has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner along with co-accused Manisha Wagle had approached this Court by way of CRM-M-41239-2018 titled as Manisha Wagle and another Vs. State of Punjab and others so as to seek protection at the hands of respondents no.4 to 6/private respondents, (as referred to in that petition), on the ground that they had performed marriage against the wishes of parents of Manisha Wagle. This Court vide order dated 18.09.2018 dismissed the said petition. In the said petition, the petitioner had projected himself to be unmarried though claimed major. However, when the said petition was taken up for hearing, Ms. Manjit Kaur, the first wife of the present petitioner appeared before this Court during the course of hearing along with her child and submitted that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner Mandeep Singh and a child was born from this wedlock. She also produced certain photographs in support of their marriage. However, when the petitioner was confronted with this fact, that he was already married and had a son from his earlier marriage, he denied the fact of his marriage with Ms. Manjit Kaur and a child from that marriage. This Court, while considering the fact that the petitioners- therein i.e. Mandeep Singh and Manisha Wagle had filed a petition with wrong averments and also furnished false affidavit in support thereof, directed them to be taken in custody and also directed learned Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court to register a criminal case against them and also to conduct an enquiry against them under Sections 340 CrPC read with Section 195 CrPC. Resultantly, the matter came up for hearing before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, in which charges were framed against the petitioner on 04.01.2019 and after recording the after-charge evidence led by the prosecution, the petitioner-accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence. During the pending proceedings at the defence, the petitioner moved an application for sending their joint affidavit Ex.CW-1/K to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparison of standard handwriting/signatures of the accused-applicant on the said affidavit with the power of attorney filed before this Court in CRM-M- 41239-2018. However, the said application was dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide order dated 22.08.2019, giving cause of action to the petitioner to file the instant revision petition against the impugned order.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has referred to provisions of Sections 243 and 247 CrPC to contend that once the prosecution evidence is over after getting the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC, a legal right is accrued to the accused to lead his defence evidence. In support of the aforesaid contention, he has referred to judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S. Sampoornam 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 311. Para 11 of the said judgment read as under:-