R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) PRAYER is made in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P -5) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, whereby application under Sections 246(6) and 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning and examining essential witness, namely; Zile Singh, has been dismissed.
(2.) THE matter arises out of a private complaint filed by petitioner against the respondent. The petitioner is a practicing advocate for 40 years and respondent the husband of sister of his wife. The respondent was owner of a plot which the petitioner -complainant purchased vide agreement dated 01.09.1994. There was a shop/construction already existing on the plot. The petitioner gave this plot to Pujari of the temple/care taker of Dharamshala for stacking fodder. Learned petitioner's counsel submits that complaint was filed in the year 2002 for an incident taking place on 09.06.2001 at about 8.00 a.m. in which the respondent and his accomplice (since died) demolished the construction illegally and unauthorizedly. The demolished material comprised of shutters, girders, bricks, doors etc. Which was removed by them. The petitioner complained of this illegal act to the respondent who threatened the petitioner to be killed by aiming firearm towards him. The matter was reported to the police and original documents were handed over to investigating officer. Police also obtained the signatures in the Court, for comparison of the signatures with the original agreement which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Madhuban. The petitioner had also handed over various documents bearing admitted signatures of respondent but those were not sent for comparison. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint case against the respondent.
(3.) IT was stated that the petitioner examined all his witnesses before summoning. Pre -charge evidence was also led after the respondent appeared in the Court. The trial Court then framed charge against the respondent. It is further contended that after the parties adduced their respective evidence, it came to the notice of petitioner that one of the essential witness, namely; Zile Singh son of Chandi Ram an attesting witness to the agreement to sell could not be inadvertently examined. It was further contended that in the preliminary evidence before summoning of the respondent, the said witness had been produced.;