JYOTSANA Vs. STATE OF H P & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned trial Magistrate, under, the impugned orders, had accepted the proposals made by the Investigating Officer concerned, in his report furnished before him under the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., proposal whereof, appertained to closure of investigation(s) with respect to the FIR concerned.

(2.) Since, the petitioner, through, her mothercum-natural guardian, has belatedly concerted, to beget reversal of the impugned order, hence, she has cast the instant application, under, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, whereby, she endeavours to seek condonation, of a delay of 198 days, as has occurred, in filing the criminal revision petition before this Court.

(3.) The application was contested by the respondents, by filing detailed reply(ies) thereto. The Investigating Officer in his apposite closure report instituted before the learned trial Magistrate concerned, had therein made ad nauseam, allusions to the factum of (a) the deceased complainant admitting, his handing over papers bearing his signature(s) to one Gulbir Singh Chaudhary, (b) his admitting of his opening a joint account inter se him and one Gulbir Singh Chaudhary, (c) thereupon, he recorded conclusions, of purported withdrawals of sums of money, from, the authorised joint account(s) by one Gulbir Singh Chaudhary, the authorised co-operator thereof, hence, not attracting any criminal liability(ies) vis-a-vis him, (d) any misuser of signatured paper(s) of deceased complainant, by Gulbir Singh Chaudhary, not being amenable to cogent proof, given the deceased complainant, not being alive, at the stage contemporaneous, to the Investigating Officer concerned, instituting a report, under, Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned trial Magistrate concerned, with proposal(s) therein, for closure of investigations.