Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 October, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Rev.No. 1624 of 2011 (O&M) 1
Crl.Rev.No. 2135 of 2011 (O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 11.10.2012
Crl.Rev.No. 1624 of 2011 (O&M)
Avtar Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
Crl.Rev.No. 2135 of 2011 (O&M)
Atamjit Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl.A.G.Punjab.
Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 11.5.2011 and 17.5.2011 passed by the trial Court.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. Crl.Rev.No. 1624 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Crl.Rev.No. 2135 of 2011 (O&M) Beant Kaur had filed a complaint against petitioners under Sections 302, 323, 452, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) on 09.10.2005 with regard to murder of Gurbachan Kaur. FIR No.136 dated 12.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) was registered at Police Station B- Division, Amritsar at the instance of Ranjit Singh. A perusal of the said FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that the statement of injured Gurbachan Kaur was recorded, who was undergoing treatment at that relevant time. Gurbhachan Kaur stated in her statement that Avtar Singh, Baldev Singh @ Bau and Parkash Singh had inflicted injuries on her person at the instigation of Atamjit Singh. She fell on the roof and then Bhupinder Singh and Himmat Singh inflicted injuries on the person of Beant Kaur.
After investigation, untraced report was submitted by the police. The said report was accepted by the Magistrate vide order dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure P-7). A perusal of the said report reveals that the statement of Ranjit Singh was recorded at the time of acceptance of the untraced report. Ranjit Singh had agreed with the untraced report. Complainant Beant Kaur had also made a statement on 1.9.2006 to the effect that she has no objection if the untraced report was accepted. It appears that later on Beant Kaur had moved an application dated 31.10.2006 that she was not agreeable to the acceptance of the untraced report. The Magistrate, vide order dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure P-7) accepted the untraced report. However, complainant Beant Kaur was given liberty to file a separate complaint. Revision petition filed by complainant Beant Crl.Rev.No. 1624 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Crl.Rev.No. 2135 of 2011 (O&M) Kaur against the order dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure P-7), whereby cancellation report was accepted, was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.7.2010 (Annexure P-9).
Thus, the Magistrate, vide order Annexure P-7 had given liberty to complainant Beant Kaur to file a complaint. However, the complaint filed by Beant Kaur against the petitioners was already pending at the time when the untraced report submitted by the police was accepted by the Magistrate vide order Annexure P-7. Complainant led her preliminary evidence in support of her case and the Magistrate vide order dated 13.7.2009 (Annexure P-11) ordered the summoning of the petitioners under Sections 302, 323, 452, 148, 149 IPC. Charge was framed against the petitioners by the trial Court under Sections 302, 323, 452, 148, 149 IPC vide order dated 17.5.2011. Thus, at the time when the untraced report was accepted by the Magistrate, the complaint filed by complainant Beant Kaur was already pending. Rather the Magistrate should have clubbed the untraced report with the complaint case. In any case, merely because the untraced report had been accepted by the Magistrate is no ground to discharge the petitioners in a complaint case as in the complaint case, the complainant has led her preliminary evidence in support of her case. Further the complainant had although, at one stage, given the statement accepting the cancellation report but had later on moved an application that she did not agree with the cancellation report. Apparently, in these circumstances, the Magistrate had given a liberty to the complainant Crl.Rev.No. 1624 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Crl.Rev.No. 2135 of 2011 (O&M) to file a complaint. It appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Magistrate at the time of passing of order Annexure P-7 that the private complaint filed by complainant Beant Kaur was already pending and it appears that due to this reason, the untraced report was not attached with the complaint case. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for discharge of the petitioners is made out. Petitioners will get an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses examined by the prosecutiont. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE October 11, 2012 anita