CRM-M-39933-2020 (O&M)

- 1 -

231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-2157-2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision: September 13, 2022

Harjit Kaur

…Petitioner

Versus

Satinder Sharma alias Indu Sharma and another

…Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:-

Mr. Ajit Pal Singh Guliani, Advocate for the petitioner.

AMAN CHAUDHARY

, J.(Oral)

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order

dated 01.08.2019, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali,

vide which the application filed by the complainant-petitioner for

summoning of witnesses has been dismissed.

The office report shows in the present case that though the

respondents were served, however, no one has put in appearance on their

behalf.

For the proper appreciation of the present matter, a few facts

mentioned in the present petition require to be noticed namely:-

complainant after the death of her husband had been cheated by her

employees Ms. Satinder Sharma @ Indu Sharma w/o Sunil Sharma and

Sunil Sharma against whom she filed complaint under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,

120-B of the IPC through Shri S.K. Karwal, Advocate in the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, in the year 2016 wherein after

leading preliminary evidence summoning order was passed to summon

the aforesaid accused:- During pre-charge evidence the counsel kept on

delaying the case on the pretext of getting the same compromise which

SARITA RANI

2022.09.26 16:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-39933-2020 (O&M)

- 2 -

was not acceptable to the complainant-petitioner. Being dissatisfied with

the same, she changed her counsel who moved an application for

conducting further examination-in-chief of the complainant in pre-charge

evidence which was ultimately allowed by the trial Court vide order

dated 24.01.2019, which was recorded on 26.02.2019 and the case was

adjourned for her cross-examination; an application by the previous

counsel of the complainant-petitioner was filed before the trial Court on

05.06.2018 for summoning the witnesses which was allowed by the Court

on the same date thereby ordering the diet money of Rs.1,400/- to be

deposited, which the petitioner paid to her earlier counsel for the same to

be deposited; the new counsel assuming that the diet money for

summoning the witnesses is lying deposited approached the criminal

Ahlmad of the Court to get the summons issued as allowed by the Court

on 05.06.2018 but was informed the same could not be issued for want of

deposit of diet money; thereafter, another application dated 30.07.2019

(Annexure P-3) for summoning the same five witnesses which was

allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 05.06.2018, was filed by the

new counsel but the same dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated

01.08.2019 on the solitary ground that the witnesses which were

mentioned in the said application do not match with the list of witnesses

attached in the file, except one witness for whom also the record does not

match. The said order reads thus:

“File taken up in view of the application field on behalf of

complainant for summoning the witnesses. Perusal of the list

of witnesses attached in the file shows that the witnesses

which are mentioned in the application filed today do not

match except one witness, qua whom also the record does

not match. Therefore, application for summoning the

SARITA RANI

2022.09.26 16:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-39933-2020 (O&M)

- 3 -

witnesses as filed today is not liable to be allowed and is

accordingly declined. The same be placed on record.

File be put up on the date fixed i.e. 06.08.2019.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since there

was no interim order passed by this Court, the learned trial Court

proceeded with the