LexVASUDEV versus PARVINDER KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 23 + VASUDEV A II. PARVINDER KUMAR & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2008) AUGUST 12, 2008 B (OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM -1 SHARMA, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; s.91: Filing of petition by appellant alleging forgery commit- c ted by respondents - Disposed of by trial Court with direc- tions - Another application filed by appellant was dismissed by trial Court - Challenge to - Dismissed by High Court in view of submission made by counsel for the respondents that FIR has been closed- Correctness of-Held: Incorrect- There D must be some order canceling FIR but it has not been brought ...- on record - The State directed to furnish a copy of the order before High Court - If no such order has been passed, dis- posal of the petition on the ground that FIR has been can- ... celled, cannot be maintained and the High Court shall hear E the matter afresh. The appellant had filed an application before the Ju- dicial Magistrate alleging that father of respondent nos.1 to 3 used to fraudulently withdraw money from the bank account of their mother by forging her signature and FIR F + No.61 dated 13.3.2002 had been filed, and praying for or- der in terms of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973. The trial Court disposed of the application with certain directions. Subsequently, another application was filed by the appellant, which was disposed of in terms of G ) the direction as given in the earlier order. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, appellants questioned the order before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the peti- tion. Hence the present appeal. 23 H 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. ' A Appellant contended that till date the order closing )r the FIR has not been furnished even before this Court. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Since the petition filed by the appellant B was rejected by the High Court on the basis of the state- ment made by the counsel for the State and the accused persons that the FIR has been cancelled, it was but natu- f- rat that there should be some order in that regard. It is not understood as. to why the same has not been brought on c record as yet. If there is no such ord.er in existence, obvi- ously the disposal of the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the FIR has been cancelled cannot be maintained. (Para - 7) [26, F-G] 1.2 The counsel for the State is directed to place be- D fore the High Court a copy of the order purporting to can- eel FIR No.61. (Para - 8) [26,G-H] 1.3 If any such order has not been passed, the High -- Court shall hear the matter afresh. Order of rejection by E order dated 13.1.2006 and order in Criminal Misc. Appli- ,.... cation 22330/2006 dated 28.4.2006 stand quashed. (Para - 9) [27,A] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : CriminalAppeal No. 1263 of 2008 F From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crimi- + nal Misc. No. 29019-M of 2005 Nand Lal and K.L. Taneja for the Appellant. G i Kuldip Singh, R.K Pandey, T.P. Mishra, H.S. Sandhu and Ajay Sharma for the Respondents. ~· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by _ Dr.tARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. H VASUDEV v. PARVINDER KUMAR & ORS. 25 [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] + 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a A learned Single Judge ·of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the petition in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.22300 of 2006 filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29019- M of 2005. 3. A brief reference to the factoal aspects would be nee- B ~ essary: Appellant had filed Criminal Misc. Case No.29019-M/2005 questioning the correctness of the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, in respect of FIR No.23/ c 25.1.2001 of PS City, Rajpura, relating to a gift deed purported to have been fraudulently executed. The appellant had filed the application alleging that Lachman Dass father of respondent nos.1 to 3 used to fraudu- lently withdraw amount from the bank account of their mother D Kishni Bai by forging her signature and FIR No.61 dated 13.3.2002 had been filed. It appears that the prosecution had filed application praying for order in terms of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). Learned SDJM disposed of the application with certain directions. The E order dated 3.5.200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.