Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sumer Chand And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 October, 2013

Author: Ram Chand Gupta

Bench: Ram Chand Gupta

            Crl.M.No.M-22565 of 2013(O&M)                                              -1-

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB                             AND HARYANA AT
                              CHANDIGARH.

                                                      Crl.M.No.M-22565 of 2013(O&M)
                                                      Date of Decision: October 24, 2013

            Sumer Chand and others
                                                              .....Petitioners
                                                 v.
            State of Haryana and another
                                                              ......Respondents

            CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

            Present:           Mr.O.P.Gupta, Advocate
                               for the petitioners.
                                             .....

            RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.148, dated 23.12.2005, under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shehzadpur, District Ambala.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.

Brief allegations are that complainant is a labourar at Banaundi Sugar Mills because of Sugar Cane Crushing season. The cattle shed of neighbour of complainant, Sumer Chand is in his neighbourhood where he used to park the tractor through bara of the complainant. Complainant requested him that he should not pass his tractor through his bara as a result of which there was some quarrel and both the parties were challaned under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.. However, the dispute was settled at that time. Petitioner-accused Sumer Chand bore grudge against the complainant party. On 18.12.2005, complainant was going to village Khera and when he passed in front of door of the house of the petitioners after paying obeisance at Khera, the present petitioners-accused came from behind. They were armed with Dandas. They assaulted him and caused him injuries. He was rescued due to intervention of some other villagers. As per medico legal report he sustained as many as six injuries, four of which were declared simple in nature and two were kept under observation subject to X-Ray Meenu examination. Hence, DDR No.32 dated 23.12.2005 was registered.

On the statements of respectables of the village, namely, Jai Kumar S/o Shri Kehar Singh and Somi Devi W/o Vakil Singh that petitioners-accused had detained Bhupinder Singh and caused injuries to him and also gave threat to his life in their presence, offences under Sections 341 and 506 IPC were added and the FIR was registered. Supplementary statement of Bhupinder Singh, Annexure P2 was also recorded in this regard.

After completion of investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against petitioners no.1 and 2 for offences under Sections 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC accordingly. They were charged for the said offences. After recording some evidence of the prosecution petitioner no.3 was also summoned to face trial by learned trial Court by allowing application of prosecution filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that on the initial statement of complainant, no cognizable offence was made out and hence recording of FIR on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant and statement of some other witnesses is illegal and police is not competent to register the FIR and to investigate the matter.

However, in my view, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. The matter was pending receiving X- Ray report of some of the injuries and hence only DDR was registered. However, later on, supplementary statements of complainant and some other witnesses were recorded on the basis of which other offences were added which were cognizable. Moreover, the investigation already completed and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. already filed, charges already framed and on the application of the prosecution filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. petitioner no.3 has also been summoned. Hence, in view of these facts it cannot be said that FIR is liable to be quashed.

There is no merit in the present petition. The same is hereby dismissed.

            24.10.2013                                      (Ram Chand Gupta)
            meenu                                                    Judge

Meenu
2013.10.30 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh