Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Dhingra vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 July, 2010
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Criminal Misc. No. M-30855 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-30855 of 2008
Date of decision : 06.07.2010
Harinder Dhingra
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 226 dated 28.04.2006 registered under Section 324, 323, 506/34 IPC at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially the complainant named Tarun Dhingra in the FIR and later changed his version alleging that Harinder Dhingra (petitioner herein) was involved in the occurrence. Learned counsel submits that this change of version shows that the entire case is totally false and FIR deserves to be quashed on this ground.
Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that statement of Deepak Singla (injured) was recorded. In the said statement, the complainant clarified that since the company was known as Tarun Exports, he understood that name of the person who had assaulted him was Tarun Dhingra. It was only later that he came to know that his actual name was Criminal Misc. No. M-30855 of 2008 2 Harinder Dhingra. Learned counsel has further submitted that trial of the case is pending before the trial court and effort shall be made by prosecution to lead its evidence expeditiously.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Only factual contentions have been raised before this court. The same cannot be gone into in inherent jurisdiction of this court as these would require some evidence to be led before the trial court to come to some conclusion. It is not possible for this court to opine at this stage whether the version was deliberately changed by the complainant or not.
In view of above, there is no merit in the petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
July 06, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE