The exercise of discretionary powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure the just decision of the case and be invoked for strong and valid reasons.

JUDGMENT :

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.

1. Case is taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

2. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby an application moved by complainant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3, seeking permission for comparison of alleged signatures of Kulwant Singh on the alleged agreement to sell dated 28.07.2009 with his specimen/standard admitted signatures on Krishi Card issued by the Punjab National Bank, Khem Karan Branch, from a handwriting and fingerprints expert, was allowed.

3. The aforesaid application was filed in a complaint filed by the complainants, which is pending adjudication before the trial Court. The complainants are the widow and daughter of late Kulwant Singh. In the said complaint, they have averred that the agreement to sell dated 28.07.2009 allegedly executed by late Kulwant Singh, was forged and fabricated by petitioner-Jugraj Singh in connivance with the witnesses, stamp vendor and deed writer. The petitioners are the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in the said complaint.

4. Vide order dated 15.04.2017 passed by the trial Court, the petitioners along with other accused, were summoned to the face the trial for the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

5. Thereafter, as noticed above, when the case was at after charge evidence stage, the application moved by the complainants for comparison of alleged signatures of Kulwant Singh on the alleged agreement to sell dated 28.07.2009 with his specimen/standard admitted signatures on Krishi Card, from a handwriting and fingerprints expert, was allowed vide order dated 14.01.2020 and the revision petition against the said order, was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, vide order dated 06.03.2020.

6. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the orders passed by the Courts below are illegal and perverse, inasmuch as the application filed by the complainants for comparison of the signatures of Kulwant Singh, at the after charge evidence, was not maintainable. It is next submitted that no such application was filed by the complainants at the pre-charge evidence. Still further, the application before the trial Court was filed without mentioning any Section in the cause title and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, has wrongly treated the said application, as the one filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the case of the complainants that the signatures of Kulwant Singh, on the agreement to sell, had been forged with the connivance of the other co-accused, but while leading the pre-summoning and pre-charge evidence, no material was brought on record by the complainants. Thus, the application was filed by the complainant in order to fill in the lacunae. It is yet further submitted that even otherwise, the complainants cannot be allowed to dispute the agreement to sell in the criminal proceedings, particularly, when a suit for specific performance filed by petitioner No.1-Jugraj Singh, in respect of the said agreement to sell, is pending adjudication before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the complaint filed by the complainants is a counterblast to the aforesaid civil suit filed by petitioner No.1-Jugraj Singh.

8. While relying upon the judgment of the of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 726, it is contended that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C., should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the learned Single Bench of this Court in Jagjit Singh Vs. Satinderjit Singh, 2013(8) RCR (Criminal) 3010.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the present petition.

10. The petitioners do no dispute the existence of the agreement t