Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nek Chand vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 19 February, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM-M-5684 of 2014. 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
CRM-M-5684 of 2014.
Date of Decision:- 19.02.2014
Nek Chand Petitioner.
Versus
Gurdev Singh and others Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: - Mr. Vishal Munjal , Advocate,
for the petitioner.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
Challenge in this Criminal petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the order dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, whereby the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.07.2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner, was dismissed.
As per version of the petitioner-complainant, on 16.01.2008 when he was returning home, respondent No.1 prompted his dog to bite the petitioner-complainant and caused injury on his leg. The remaining accused were exhorting respondent-accused No.1. Respondent-accused No.3 not only exhorted the complainant-petitioner but also called him by bad names. At the behest of the respondent-accused, FIR No. 08, dated 20.01.2008, was registered against the petitioner- complainant and others. In the FIR, the charges were framed and Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.02.20 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRM-M-5684 of 2014. 2 prosecution evidence was led. Even the statements of the accused in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C were recorded and the said case was fixed for defence evidence then the petitioner- complainant filed the complaint on 07.11.2011.
Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, recorded the preliminary evidence and dismissed the complaint. The operative part of the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, reads as under:-
" As per version of the complainant, he was returning home on 16.01.2008 when accused No.1 let his dog to bite the complainant. That the order accused No. 4 and 6 to 8 were exhorting. That accused No.3 was also exhorting and calling names. FIR No.8 of 20.01.2008 was registered against the complainant and others. Ex.C4 is the charge dated 21.01.2009 which was framed against the complainant and others. Ex.C.3 is the order dated 15.05.2012 specifically stating that the case is fixed for evidence of defence. The present complaint was filed on 07.11.2011. What obstructed the complainant to file a complaint for about 03 years and 10 months is left unexplained. Ex.C.1 the MLR of the complainant shows 13 injuries, but all the injuries are superficial in nature and are either bruises or abrasions. Complainant is facing the trial under Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.02.20 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRM-M-5684 of 2014. 3 Sections 452, 323, 324, 325 read with Sections 148, 149, IPC, whereas injuries on the person of the complainant are superficial in nature. All these circumstances point only to one thing that the present complaint is filed at a belated stage only to delay the progress of the criminal case in FIR No. 8 of 20.01.2008 which is pending for defence evidence. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for further proceeding in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed under Section 203, Cr.P.C."
The petitioner-complainant dissatisfied with the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, approached the Court of Session by way of Criminal Revision Petition and the same was dismissed. The operative part of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pathankot, is as under:-
" In the revisional jurisdiction under Section 393, Cr.P.C., this court has to call the record of the trial court and satisfy itself as the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings of the inferior court. Perusal of summoned file shows that the complainant himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and examined Dr. Pawan Kumar and CW-2 Amrik Kumar and CW-3 Raghubir Chand as Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.02.20 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRM-M-5684 of 2014. 4 CW-4. The revisionist stated that he has given the statement to the police on 17.01.2008, but no action has been taken by the police. Revisionist has not called any witness from the police station to prove that on 17.01.2008 he has suffered any statement to the police. He admitted that he is facing trial under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 148, 149, IPC registered on the statement of accusd Gurdev Singh. As per MLR Ex.C.1, there are 13 injuries, but all the injuries are superficial in nature. These are either abrasions or bruises. The present complaint has been filed after a period of 3 years and 10 months. The revisionist took the plea that he has given statement to the police on
17.01.2008 but no such statement has been proved by him by summoning the record from the police station."
This court is also of the opinion that the delay of three years and ten months in filing the complaint speaks volume on the veracity of the version of the complainant. The injuries alleged to have been sustained by the petitioner-complainant were superficial in nature. From the material available on record, it is well proved that the present complaint has been filed by the petitioner as a counter-blast to the FIR registered against him and his co-accused.
Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.02.20 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRM-M-5684 of 2014. 5
In view of the above, there is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by both the courts below and as such, the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE 19.02.2014.
Anoop Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.02.20 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh