Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ran Singh And Others vs Gaje Singh And Others on 4 October, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Rev.No.2019 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Rev.No.2019 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 4.10.2013
Ran Singh and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Gaje Singh and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.R.K.Handa, Advocate and
Mr.Madan Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl..A.G, Haryana
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby revision petition filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), acquitting the petitioners on the basis of compromise was set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Tata Steel Ltd. vs. M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd. and another 2013 (2) RCR (Crl.) Devi Anita 2013.10.07 16:52 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.2019 of 2011 (O&M) 2 1005, respondent No.1 should have filed an appeal against the order of acquittal.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
As per the Full Bench decision of this Court in Tata Steel Ltd.'s case (supra), in view of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., an appeal preferred by a victim against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in respect of cognizable offence whether bailable or non bailable shall lie to the Sessions Court.
In the present case, the trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2008 had acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them in view of compromise effected between the parties. The said order could have been challenged by the aggrieved person by way of an appeal before the Sessions Court. However, revision petition filed by respondent No.1, challenging the order of acquittal of the accused was not maintainable.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. However, respondent No.1 would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-8) by way of appeal, if so advised.
(SABINA) JUDGE October 04, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.07 16:52 I am approving this document Chandigarh