Sukhwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2014

Bench: M.M.S.Bedi

       CRR-289-2014 (O&M)


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                   CHANDIGARH


                                      CRR-289-2014 (O&M).
                                      Decided on: January 27, 2014.

       Sukhwinder Kaur
                                                               .. Petitioner(s)

                          VERSUS

       State of Punjab
                                                            .. Respondent(s)
                                      ***
       CORAM:             HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
                                      ***
       PRESENT            Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate,
                          for the petitioner.

       M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Misc., application is allowed.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing of the revision petition is condoned.

Petitioner is complainant in a cross-version in the main case registered against her husband. Her cross-version is that she had been attacked by Jagga Singh, his wife Veena and Paramjit Kaur with sharp edged weapon. Injury No.1 shown in her MLR has been declared to be grievous.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The husband had been allegedly confined wrongfully as per the cross-version.

Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner complainant challenges the framing of charge under Section 342 IPC Raj Kumar Arora 1 2014.01.29 11:48 CRR-289-2014 (O&M) against Jagga Singh only and is aggrieved by the illegality committed by the trial Court in not framing charge under Section 326 IPC against the other party for having caused grievous injury on the person of the petitioner.

I have seen the MLR of the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the injury suffered by the petitioner which is claimed to be grievous, has not been considered while framing charge under Section 342 Cr.P.C., against the other party.

The revision petition against wrong framing of charges on the basis of the material available on the record can be looked into only after the petitioner opts to avail the alternative legal remedy available to him by moving an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. It will be open to the trial Court to consider the injury on the person of the petitioner and amend the charge in case the petitioner is able to make out a case for rectification of the charge.

Disposed of as withdrawn with above said liberty.

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 27, 2014.

rka Raj Kumar Arora 2 2014.01.29 11:48

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court