Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devki Nandan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 February, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-4581 of 2014
.....
Date of decision:6.2.2014
Devki Nandan and another
...Petitioners
v.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Jangvir Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
Devki Nandan and Jagat-petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against State of Haryana and Shanti Devi for quashing of the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal (Annexure-P.3) and the order dated 28.1.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal (Annexure-P.4), whereby the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused.
It is stated in the petition that the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused to face trial launched maliciously against the petitioners by the complainant Bhim Singh as a counter-blast as civil litigation is pending between them. As per the version of the complainant in the FIR, on 2.6.2008, his wife Shanti Devi was alone at home, when Devki Nandan, Sukhbir and Jagat along with 10-12 other persons entered Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-4581 of 2014 [2] her house and destroyed the same. They had taken away the household articles. These persons had tied his wife and taken away `20,000/-. They had also destroyed the hut belonging to the neighbours and threatened to kill the wife of the complainant. It is also stated that the statements of Shanti Devi and alleged eye witnesses, namely, Dinesh, Rakesh, Teepar Chand and Rajesh were recorded, but none of their statements was matching with each other and were not found to be turstworthy. Therefore, during the investigation, the petitioners were found innocent. Accused Sukhbir was charged only for the offences under Sections 379 and 427 IPC. It is also stated in the petition that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon accused-petitioners which was allowed on 10.5.2010 merely on conjectures and surmises. On 24.9.2010, charges for the commission of offences under Sections 379 and 427 IPC were also framed against the accused. The petitioners filed revision petition against the order dated 10.5.2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal allowed the revision petition vide order dated 4.4.2011 and discharged the petitioners while observing that there was nothing which can be taken an additional fresh evidence as to summon the petitioners as accused. It is also opined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that if any additional evidence comes on the file, the State/complainant would be at liberty to move application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Another application was moved by the respondents seeking summoning of the petitioners as accused on the strength of the statements of PW-2 Shanti Devi, PW-3 Bhim Singh, PW-4 Rakesh and PW-5 Rajesh. It is further Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-4581 of 2014 [3] stated that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal misinterpreted the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal and allowed this application vide order dated 8.1.2013. The revision petition was filed against the order dated 8.1.2013 which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide order dated 28.1.2014. It is stated that the orders are perverse and lack sanctity.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the statements of the complainant and eye witnesses were not found trustworthy during investigation and now the same witnesses cannot be believed. The statements of the same witnesses in the Court cannot be believed. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations are that Shanti Devi was tied with rope etc. and `20,000/- were looted, but no such injury was found and no medical examination was conducted upon her. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that even the statements of the eye witnesses were not matching with each other. The said alleged statements were already on record at the time of investigation. It is also argued that in order to settle personal score against the petitioners it is a counter-blast as civil litigation was pending between both the parties. Though, citations have been given in the revision petition, but at the time of arguments these have not been cited.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-4581 of 2014 [4] From the record, I find that earlier the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal vide order dated 10.5.2010, but this order had been set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide order dated 4.4.2011 with liberty to file fresh application after sufficient evidence is brought on record. At that time only statement of the complainant was recorded. Later on when other eye witnesses PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have been examined, again application was filed which was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal vide order dated 8.1.2013. Against this order, revision petition had been filed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide order dated 28.1.2014 dismissed the revision petition.
As regards the arguments that during investigation the Investigating Officer had kept the name of present petitioners in column No.2 and found them innocent itself is no ground that now on the basis of evidence produced before the Court, they cannot be summoned. This provision under Section 319 is there in the Criminal Procedure Code also to deal with such situation when the Investigating Officer finds any person innocent, but when the evidence comes before the Court and it appears to the Court that the other persons also are involved in the commission of the offence and they should be tried together with the accused already challaned. So, merely that the present petitioners were found innocent is no ground to reject the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Secondly, when the complainant and eye witnesses are deposing against the present petitioners, at this stage, it cannot be held that the FIR is false Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-4581 of 2014 [5] or a counter-blast to the civil litigation and has been filed to put pressure. Even after the investigation, the challan has been presented against the co- accused, which means that the occurrence had taken place as per the Investigating Officer also. As regards the facts that the statements are not matching with each other, at this stage, this Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence in this petition. From the perusal of the impugned orders, I find that the orders passed by the Courts below are correct and as per law and no illegality has been committed.
Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
February 6, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh