- (1.) IN the light of order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, an application preferred by Ram Rattan Yadav, Advocate under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been accepted and a conditional pardon has been granted to him in criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance to registration of FIR No.42 dated 30.3.2009, under Sections 379/420/467/468/471/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh. A revision petition preferred against the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul and filed by the present petitioner, namely, Suresh Chand stands dismissed in the light of order dated 7.2.2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.
(2.) THE instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the orders dated 22.7.2013, Annexure P1, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul as also the order dated 7.2.2014, Annexure P3, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the FIR in question was registered upon the complaint submitted by Satbir son of Mahavir Parshad against the present petitioner, namely, Suresh Chand as also co -accused Ram Rattan, Advocate, Padam Chand, Parkash , Mahabir, Smt.Parkash Devi, Advocate, Parmod Vashisht and Mohinder Sharma. It is submitted that the police after having completed investigation presented challan against all the afore -noticed accused except against Ram Rattan Yadav (respondent No.2 herein) who was put in column No.2 of the challan. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been moved by the prosecution to summon respondent No.2 i.e. Ram Rattan Yadav as additional accused and the same had been allowed by the trial Court. Learned counsel has argued that an application moved by respondent No.2 under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of pardon and to turn approver has been allowed by the trial Court without appreciating true facts and evidence available on the file. It is contended that the error has further been compounded on account of dismissal of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul in the light of impugned order dated 7.2.2014, Annexure P3.;