CRM-M-6240-2016 (O&M) and one connected case -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 152 (2 cases) 1. CRM-M-6240-2016 (O&M) Baljeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Satbir (since deceased) through his brother Vakil Singh ...Respondent 2. CRM-M-13743-2017 (O&M) Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Satbir (since deceased) through his brother Vakil Singh ...Respondent Date of decision : 20.07.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Akash Singla, Advocate and Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. This common order shall dispose of above-mentioned two petitions as they are similar in nature and lay challenge to the same order. 2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS) seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby the revision petition preferred by respondent No.1 against the order dated 20.01.2015, dismissing Complaint No.24 of 2014 in default, was allowed and the complaint was ordered to be restored. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6240-2016 (O&M) and one connected case -2- 3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of these petitions are that the petitioners, who were arraigned as accused No.4 and 3, respectively in the aforementioned complaint instituted by the respondent (since deceased) under Sections 467, 468, 471, 218 and 120-B IPC have approached this Court challenging the order of restoration of the complaint. As per the allegations in the complaint, accused Nos.1 to 3, in conspiracy with accused No.4, who was serving as Halqa Patwari, had fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of agricultural land despite there being no partition amongst the co-sharers and had thereafter manipulated the revenue record by effecting changes in the khasra girdawari without issuing any notice to the complainant's mother. It was further alleged that the petitioner facilitated the illegal mutation and change in the revenue entries in connivance with the other accused, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. The complaint was fixed for recording of preliminary evidence on 20.01.2015. On the said date, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared despite repeated calls, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal dismissed the complaint in default for non-prosecution, vide order dated 20.01.2015. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant filed an application before the trial Court seeking restoration of the complaint on the ground that his counsel had inadvertently noted the next date of hearing as 30.01.2015 instead of 20.01.2015. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.05.2015 holding that it had no power to review its earlier order in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the complainant preferred a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, who vide impugned order dated 08.12.2015 accepted the revision petition and restored the complaint. Aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been filed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6240-2016 (O&M) and one connected case -3- by the petitioners-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is argued that once the complaint had been dismissed in default, the complainant had no remedy by way of a revision petition before the Sessions Court. Rather, the only remedy available under law was to file an appeal before this Court. It is submitted that the revisional Court has erroneously entertained and allowed a revision petition which was itself not maintainable. It is further argued that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application seeking restoration of the complaint, as the Magistrate had become functus officio after passing the order dismissing the complaint and was barred from reviewing the same in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the revisional Court ignored this settled legal position while directing restoration of the complaint. Hence, it is urged that the petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the revisional Court, restoring the complaint, is liable to be set aside. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ramanjit Singh v. Ramesh Kumar Narula, 2019 (3) RCR (Criminal) 363. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as the same is well reasoned. It is submitted that the complaint had been dismissed solely on account of the inadvertent absence of the complainant and his counsel. It is argued that the complainant had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representative had been brought on record. Thereafter, due to a bona fide clerical mistake committed by the counsel in noting the next date of hearing as 30.01.2015 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6240-2016 (O&M) and one connected case -4- instead of 20.01.2015, neither the legal representative nor the counsel could appear before the trial Court, resulting in dismissal of the complaint for default. Immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the dismissal, an application for restoration was moved before the trial Court, which came to be dismissed only on the ground of lack of power of review. Thereafter, the respondent rightly invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, which, considering the bona fide explanation for the absence and the fact that the complaint had been dismissed at the stage of preliminary evidence without adjudication on merits, exercised its revisional jurisdiction to restore the complaint in order to secure the ends of justice. The impugned order of restoration merely affords an opportunity to the complainant to lead preliminary evidence and does not prejudice the rights of the accused in any manner. It is, therefore, urged that the petitions are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. A careful reading of the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 reveals that the learned revisional Court has examined the entire factual and legal position in detail. The revisional Court has noticed that on the date the complaint was dismissed, the matter was still at the stage of recording of preliminary evidence and no accused had yet been summoned. It has, therefore, rightly distinguished such a situation from a complaint dismissed after issuance of process under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and has held that the present case did not fall within the ambit of Section 249 or Section 256 Cr.P.C. Rather, the complaint was still at the pre- summoning stage where the Magistrate was yet to consider whether to proceed under Sections 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revisional Court concluded MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6240-2016 (O&M) and one connected case -5- that the revision petition was maintainable. The revisional Court has further recorded that the complainant had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representative had already been substituted. It has also taken note of the explanation furnished by the legal representative that owing to an inadvertent clerical mistake, the counsel had noted the next date of hearing as 30.01.2015 instead of 20.01.2015, resulting in the absence of the complainant on the relevant date. The said explanation has been found to be plausible. The revisional Court has observed that the complaint ought not to have been dismissed in such a hurried manner and that, in the interest of justice, an opportunity should have been afforded to the complainant to prosecute the complaint. It has further emphasized the well-recognized principle that procedural law is intended to advance the cause of justice and that ordinarily a party should not be condemned unheard and the lis should be decided on merits. 8. This Court does not find any perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the aforesaid reasoning. The impugned order merely restores the complaint to its original position so that the learned Magistrate may examine the preliminary evidence in accordance with law. No finding has been returned on the merits of the allegations nor has any prejudice been caused to the petitioner, who shall have full opportunity to contest the proceedings in the event process is issued against him. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only where continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The present case does not fall within either of the aforesaid contingencies. Rather, the impugned order serves the cause of substantial justice by MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6240-2016 (O&M) and one connected case -6- enabling adjudication of the complaint on merits instead of allowing it to fail on account of a procedural lapse. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the well- reasoned order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, the present petitions, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed. 9. Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. 20.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R. R. R. R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document