VINAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Section 397 readwith Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una dated 23.5.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2008, wherein the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that one Lakhbir Singh had filed a complaint under the provisions of Sections 341, 323, 325, 506 readwith Section 34 of IPC against several persons which was pending trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amb. On 7.3.2008, an application was moved on behalf of the complainant Lakhbir Singh, through his counsel, for taking up the case before the date fixed of hearing alleging that as the accused were his neighbours and to maintain cordial relations, they have compromised the matter. On the same day, an application was also moved seeking permission to compound the case. A compromise deed allegedly signed by complainant Lakhbir Singh was also produced before the Court. The case was allowed to be compounded by the learned trial Court.

(3.) THE main submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the alleged compromise was not effected in the Court but it was already reduced into writing as alleged by the complainant and thereafter, the same was produced in the Court. Thus, it was submitted that the Court could not have taken cognizance under Section 195 Cr.P.C. but it could have been taken on a private complaint filed by the complainant and therefore, the order passed for filing the complaint before learned CJM, Una is liable to be set -aside. To substantiate his plea, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs Meenakshi Marwah and another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2119. The observations made in para -25 were relied upon, which reads as under: - Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provisions have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. - On the strength of the above observations made by the learned trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that only a private complaint could have been filed by the complainant and no proceedings under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. could have been initiated. To substantiate his plea further, learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon a decision of this Court in Munshi Ram vs Shyam Lal and Ors.,2008 CRI. L.J. 4605.