Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwan & Ors vs Jagdish Kumar on 16 January, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-1318 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-1318 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-16.1.2013
Balwan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Jagdish Kumar ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, complainant-respondent Jagdish Kumar (for brevity "the complainant") has filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against the petitioners-accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 427, 447 and 506 read with section 34 IPC. After taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate summoned them to face the trial under sections 427, 447 and 506 read with section 149 IPC, by virtue of impugned summoning order dated 24.7.2012 (Annexure P2).
2. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioners-accused was dismissed as well, by the revisional Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 20.11.2012 (Annexure P3).
3. The petitioners-accused still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present 2nd revision petition, (which is otherwise legally CRM No. M-1318 of 2013 (O&M) 2 barred) in the garb of petition u/s 482 Cr.PC, to quash the impugned order (Annexure P2) & judgment (Annexurre P3).
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
5. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since there is no cogent evidence on record to warrant the conviction of the petitioners, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake to summon them to face the trial, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record, that taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate has rightly summoned the petitioners-accused in a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) to face the trial of indicated offences, vide impugned summoning order (Annexure P2). It is now well settled proposition of law that at the time of summoning the accused, the Court is only required to prima-facie make an opinion as to whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed against them and not the cogent evidence to convict them at this stage.
7. Not only that, the revisional Court has re-examined the matter in the right perspective and negatived the claim of petitioners- accused, by way of impugned judgment (Annexure P3), the operative part of which is as under (para 4) :-
"Perusal of the file shows that the incident has been mentioned as that of 1.7.2008. Jagdish Kumar, complainant-respondent has alleged that on land measuring 87 Kanals 11 Marlas comprising in Khewat No.44 Khatoni No.89, Khasra No.75//14 (6-11), 15 (6-0), 16 (8-0), 17 (8- CRM No. M-1318 of 2013 (O&M) 3
0), 23(8-0), 24(8-0), 25 (7-12), 76//11(2-7), 20(2-17), 77//3(8-0), 4(8-0), 5(5-4), 6(2-6), 7/1((3-7), 8/1(3-7) situated at Dhani Bhakhran,. Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani, gawar crop was sown by the complainant Jagdish and his father Ram Sarup. All the respondents entered in the fields of the complainant along with their tractors and damaged the crops. Photograph of the field in damaged condition has been placed on the record as Ex.CW4/A. FIR Ex.C1 was registered on 24.7.2008 under Sections 447/427/506/149 IPC against all the eight accused persons. It is the allegations of the complainant that later on the Police colluded with the accused and did not take any further action. The complainant was left with no option but to file the complaint before the learned trial Court. Matter was also sent for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC. In enquiry statement of complainant Jagdish, his father Ram Sarup, Ranbir son of Lal Chand, Ranbir son of Ram Sarup and Pardeep Kumar were recorded. After that report has been submitted by HC Ram Phool that during investigation Shiv Narayan son of Sher Singh and Suresh son of Dhanpat were found guilty and were arrested. Tractor No.HR17-0755 was taken into Police possession. All the remaining persons named in the FIR were found innocent. Despite the report submitted by Ramphool HC before the Court with regard to innocence of the accused persons, vide order dated 24.07.2012 accused Hazari, Balwan, Jai Singh, Bijender, Ravinder, Dharam Singh, Madan Singh and Matender have been ordered to be summoned to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under Section 427/447/506/149 IPC. Statement of the complainant was recorded immediately after the incident. There was no delay on the part of the complainant. When no action was taken, instant complaint was filed by the complainant. After considering the preliminary evidence on record. Learned trial Court has rightly summoned the revisionists-accused to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 427/447/506/149 IPC."
8. The learned counsel for petitioners-accused did not point out any reason/ground, muchless cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned orders.
9. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have correctly CRM No. M-1318 of 2013 (O&M) 4 recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such well- articulated impugned order/judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the present 2nd revision petition (which is otherwise barred under section 397(3) Cr.PC), in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P2 & P3) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.
16.1.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge