Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by 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 factual aspects would be necessary: 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. 23/25.1.2001 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 fraudulently withdraw amount from the bank account of their mother 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 Rs. the Code). Learned SDJM disposed of the application with certain directions. The order dated 3.5.2004 was passed by learned SDJM, Rajpura. Subsequently, another application was filed in terms of Section 91 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of by order dated 4.5.2005 pointing out that in view of earlier order dated 3.5.2004 nothing further was required to be done. The order was questioned before the Punjab and Hayana High Court. By order dated 13.1.2006, the High Court closed the matter with the following order: Learned Counsel for the State and the accused submit that FIR No. 61 already stands cancelled and in any case, the documents were available in Court, which could be examined in court earlier. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the State that the State is no longer interested in taking documents from the Court. In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. An application to recall the order was filed primarily on the ground that there was no order passed cancelling the FIR. The petition had been disposed of on the basis of statement made by learned Counsel for the accused to the effect that FIR has been closed. Appellant submitted that no such order had been passed. As noted above, High Court dismissed the petition.;