Chaman Masih And Others vs State Of Punjab on 1 July, 2008

Criminal Misc. No.26271-M of 2005                                      1




      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                  Criminal Misc. No.26271-M of 2005

                       Date of Decision: 1.7.2008

Chaman Masih and Others
                                                           ...Petitioners
                                  Versus
State of Punjab
                                                          ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

Present: Mr. K.K.Aggarwal, Senior Advocate,
         with Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
         for the petitioners.

          Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General,
          Punjab, for the respondent-State.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

Counsel for the State contend that in the present case not only

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted but charge was also

framed against the petitioners. The FIR which has been registered in

this petition contain facts which have been disputed during the course of

arguments.

I am afraid that disputed questions of fact cannot be

entertained in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

It has been further contended by Mr. Aggarwal that validity of

the sale deed is subject matter of Civil Court.

Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act define the cases where

any finding of Civil Court will be a relevant factor before the Criminal

Court. It has been held on number of times by this Court that both Civil
Criminal Misc. No.26271-M of 2005 2

and Criminal Courts, discharge their functions in their independent

spheres. Booth the Courts adjudicate upon evidence led before them

and appreciate the evidence which is before Criminal Court or Civil

Court. It has been also held by Hon’ble the Apex Court that since the

public memory is short, criminal proceedings should get precedence

over the Civil Court, as litigation in Civil Court is not only time consuming

but tardy.

At this stage, Mr. Aggarwal has stated that the FIR against the

petitioners was lodged in the year 2001. It has been further submitted

that the sale deed was executed about 20 years ago i.e. on 15.6.1982.

This statement can be taken into consideration for exempting personal

appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court.

I find no merit in the present petition and the same is

dismissed. However, in case petitioners appear before the trial Court on

or before 31.7.2008, their personal appearance shall stand exempted

subject to furnishing an undertaking that they shall cause appearance as

and when directed by the trial Court. They shall further state in the

undertaking that the evidence recorded by the trial Court in their

absence though in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon

them. Trial Court may specify any other condition in the undertaking to

be furnished by the petitioners. Trial Court is further directed to

conclude the trial within one year from the date of receipt of copy of this

order.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
July 1, 2008
“DK”