Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeet Ram And Others vs Parkash Chand on 16 February, 2010
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009
Date of decision : 16.2.2010
Jeet Ram and Others
.... Petitioners
Versus
Parkash Chand
.... Respondent
Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
****
S.S. SARON, J.
The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nuh and the order dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure P-13) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them from the complaint (Annexure P-2) has been declined.
The complainant Parkash Chand (respondent) along with his other family members on 14.11.2000 it is alleged had attacked Sewa Ram and Umrao and caused multiple injuries to them. FIR No.253 dated 16.11.2000 was registered at Police Station Nuh for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." - for short) on the statement of Sant Ram against Parkash Chand (respondent) and his other family members. In respect of the same incident Dharmender son of the respondent Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [2] Parkash Chand also made a statement before the police in which he stated that on 14.11.2000 at about 8.00 p.m. an altercation had ensued between Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) and Suresh who had taken drinks at that time. Parkash Chand (respondent), it is submitted, intervened in the dispute which was settled. Thereafter, according to Dharmender, Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) son of Umrao came to their house and abused them. At that time, Dharmender, his mother Mayawati and his brother Satish came out and mother of Dharmender asked Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) as to why was he abusing. On hearing the noise, Arjun, Surjan and Bali brothers of Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) inflicted an axe blow on the head of Dharmender. Besides, Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1), Surjan and Bali also gave him fist blows and slapped him on his neck and chest. Dharmender's brother Satish rescued him from them and he was taken to CHC Nuh by his mother. The statement (Annexure P-1) of Dharmender in this regard was recorded. On the basis of the said statement (Annexure P-1) and after getting medico-legal report (MLR), the police did not find any case to be made out and a calendar of events ('calandra') was submitted before the Magistrate under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." - for short). According to the petitioners, the statement (Annexure P-1) made by Dharmender son of the respondent Parkash Chand on 14.11.2000 would clearly show that none of the present petitioners except Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) was present at the place of occurrence. In any case, charges were framed on 15.3.2001 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh in FIR No.253 dated 16.11.2000 that was lodged by Sant Ram against Parkash Chand (respondent) and his other family members. The Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [3] respondent then filed a Criminal Complaint (Annexure P-2) alleging commission of offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 148/149 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the petitioners as also Yad Ram son of Chhajju Ram and Umrao son of Jai Ram. In the said complaint (Annexure P-2), the respondent made allegations against the petitioners as also Yad Ram and Umrao though the latter two were not mentioned in the statement made by Dharmender before the Police. It is submitted that the said complaint (Annexure P-2) is an improved version of the statement (Annexure P-1) of Dharmender. Besides, the complainant (respondent) suppressed the fact of his involvement in FIR No.253 dated 16.11.2000. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh after recording preliminary evidence summoned the respondents in the complaint (petitioners herein) in the complaint (Annexure P-2) vide order dated 30.5.2001 (Annexure P-3). Eight of the accused namely Yad Ram (non-petitioner), Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1), Charan Singh (petitioner No.2), Bansi (petitioner No.3), Ram Dass (petitioner No.4), Umrao (non-petitioner), Chandan (petitioner No.5) and Baldev (petitioner No.6) filed a criminal revision petition against the order dated 30.5.2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the revision petition. The petitioners as also Yad Ram and Umrao filed a Crl. Misc. petition (Annexure P-5) in this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 30.5.2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh as also the order dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The said petition was Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [4] disposed of vide order dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure P-5). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners therein (i.e. the present petitioners as also Yad Ram and Umrao) were relegated to the trial Court for their remedy. It was observed that the petitioners as also Yad Ram and Umrao may, if they so desire, raise all the issues before the trial Court by making an application in this regard in accordance with law before proceeding further in the matter. Before the learned trial Court i.e. the Court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh only Yad Ram (co-accused) submitted an application dated 1.12.2001 (Annexure P-6) for re- consideration of the summoning order dated 30.5.2001 (Annexure P-3). It was prayed that the summoning order dated 30.5.2001 (Annexure P-3) may be dropped/quashed against the applicants. The names of the applicants other than Yad Ram were not mentioned. It was primarily contended that a FIR had been registered against the respondent as the respondent and his family members in furtherance of their common intention had attacked Sant Ram and Umrao and caused multiple injuries to them. However, Dharmender son of the respondent Parkash Chand on 14.11.2000 made a statement (Annexure P-1) before the police to the effect that at about 8.00 p.m. on the same day an altercation had ensued between Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) and Suresh who were in an inebriated condition and that Parkash Chand (respondent) had intervened. It is submitted that from perusal of the statement (Annexure P-1) made by Dharmender son of the respondent Parkash Chand on 14.11.2000 it was clear that the present petitioners except Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) were not present at the place of occurrence and had not been attributed any Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [5] role or part. The names of the petitioners other than Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) were not mentioned by the Dharmender son of the respondent Parkash Chand in his statement (Annexure P-1) made before the police. The respondent Parkash Chand filed his reply dated 12.6.2002 (Annexure P-7) to the application under Section 245 Cr.P.C.. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh vide order dated 20.3.2003 (Annexure P-8) held that the application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable and dismissed the same being devoid of merit. The petitioners as also Yad Ram and Umrao filed a revision petition against the order dated 20.3.2003 (Annexure P-8) which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P-
9). The impugned order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh was set aside and the case was sent back to the learned trial Court for deciding the application of the petitioners filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with law as per the directions issued by this Court as contained in the order dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure P-5). Against the said order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P-9) of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, the respondent Parkash Chand filed a criminal revision in this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2005 (Annexure P-10). It was held that the grievance of the complainant (respondent herein) was that in fact only Yad Ram had filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. which was declined by the Magistrate and that others could not join Yad Ram in the revision petition, which had been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P-9). It was held by this Court in its order dated 16.12.2005 (Annexure P-10) that if Yad Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [6] Ram alone had filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. which was declined and then all the accused had filed a revision petition which was accepted, it did not cause any prejudice to the complainant (respondent herein). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, it was observed, had just directed the Magistrate to consider the application of the accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with law and as per directions of this Court contained in the order dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure P-5). The Magistrate, it was observed, was bound to rehear the matter and pass a fresh order. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh on re-hearing the matter vide order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) allowed the application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. and the summoning order dated 30.5.2001 (Annexure P-3) qua accused Yad Ram was recalled. Accordingly, Yad Ram stood discharged in the case. The petitioners aggrieved against the said order to the extent that they had not been discharged filed a revision petition (Annexure P-12) before the Sessions Court which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure P-13), which now assailed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even though Yad Ram one of the co-accused of the petitioners had alone filed an application dated 1.12.2001 (Annexure P-6) for his discharge from the case in terms of Section 245 Cr.P.C. ,however, the same was to be considered and read as on behalf of the petitioners as well in view of the order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P-
9) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby the revision petition of the petitioners against the order dated 20.3.2003 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Sub Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [7] Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh was allowed as also in view of the order passed by this Court on 16.12.2005 (Annexure P-10) whereby the petition of respondent Parkash Chand against the order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon had been dismissed. It is submitted that the learned trial Magistrate gravely erred in treating the application dated 1.12.2001 (Annexure P-6) to be only on behalf of Yad Ram co-accused of the petitioners and not on behalf of the petitioners.
In response, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is absolutely misplaced as the application (Annexure P-
6) for discharge was filed by Yad Ram only and the same could not be treated to be on behalf of the others and the petitioners could not be discharged on the basis of the said application (Annexure P-
6) as there was no prayer for their discharge. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are similarly placed as Yad Ram who has since been discharged and therefore, they were also liable to be discharged. It may, however, be noticed that in terms of the order dated 07.11.2001 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court, the petitioners were relegated to the trial Court for their remedy. It was observed that they may, if they so desire, raise all the issues Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [8] before the trial Court by making an application in this regard in accordance with law before proceedings further in the matter. The petitioners admittedly did not file any application seeking their discharge in terms of Section 245 Cr.P.C. and only Yad Ram filed an application (Annexure P-6) under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for reconsideration of the summoning order. The said application (Annexure P-6) of Yad Ram was dismissed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh vide order dated 20.3.2003 (Annexure P-8). It was inter alia observed that the Court could not review its own order at its own or being successor Court. The complaint was at its initial stage of pre-charge evidence and the pre-charge evidence was yet to be recorded. It was also observed that the applicants feel that they would be discharged for want of sufficient evidence; however, the Court had not seen the evidence in a broader perspective. The revision against the said order has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P-9). It was observed that the learned Magistrate acted illegally in dismissing the application (Annexure P-6) of the petitioners filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. primarily on the ground that pre-charge evidence was yet to be recorded in the case and the application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable at that early stage. The said approach, it was observed, was not only against the directions of this Court as contained in the order dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure P-5) but also contrary to the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 245 Cr.P.C., which clearly provides that a Magistrate is empowered to discharge an accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless. Parkash Chand (respondent) filed a Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [9] revision petition against the said order dated 4.3.2001 (Annexure P-
9), which was dismissed by this Court on 16.12.2005 (Annexure P-
10). It was inter alia observed by this Court that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 04.3.2004 (Annexure P-9) had just directed the Magistrate to consider the application of the accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with law and as per directions of this Court contained in order dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure P-5). It was also observed that the Magistrate was bound to rehear the matter and pass a fresh order. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh vide order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) reconsidered the summoning order dated 30.5.2001 (Annexure P-3) and discharged Yad Ram alone. A perusal of the order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) shows that the learned Magistrate considered the complaint (Annexure P-2) filed by the respondent Parkash Chand alleging that on 14.11.2000 at about 7.00 p.m. son of the complainant namely Dharmender and wife of the complainant namely Maya Devi were present in their dwelling house at Ward No.3, Nuh. The complainant Parkash Chand (respondent) at that time came back to his house after putting down the shutter of his shop. In the meantime, the accused (petitioners herein) in furtherance of their common intention armed with deadly weapons like 'lathis', hockey sticks and 'dandas' entered the house of the complainant and dragged out his son (Dharmender) forcibly. Without assigning any reason the accused Yad Ram gave a 'danda' blow on his back, Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) gave a hockey stick blow on his back, Charan Singh (petitioner No.2) grappled him in his clutches. In the meantime, the complainant went to rescue his son Dharmender, on Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [10] which Bansi (petitioner No.3) and Hari Kishan (non-petitioner) gave fist blows to the complainant. Ram Dass (petitioner No.4) inflicted a 'danda' blow on the person of Maya Devi, wife of the complainant; besides, Chandan (petitioner No.5) and Baldev (petitioner No.6) gave fist blows and kicked the son of the complainant. Blood was oozing out from the head of Dharmender and he sustained multiple injuries from the hands of the accused. The accused Charan Singh and Yad Ram further inflicted a 'lathi' blow each on the left leg of Dharmender, son of the complainant. The accused Ram Dass (petitioner No.4) slapped Maya Devi, wife of the complainant. In support of the said allegations, the complainant Parkash Chand appeared in the witness box as PW1 and also examined his son Dharmender as PW2; besides, Daya Chand was examined as PW3 and Bhim Singh was examined as PW4 in the preliminary evidence on the basis of which the accused were ordered to be summoned to stand trial vide order dated 30.5.2001 (Annexure P-3). The accused Yad Ram placed on record the certified copy of the statement dated 14.11.2000 (Annexure P-1) made by Dharmender before the Police of Police Station, Nuh. Besides, copy of DDR dated 14.11.2000 recorded on the basis of the said statement (Annexure P-1) of Dharmender, was produced. It was observed that at the time of arguments, it was not argued by the learned counsel for the complainant Parkash Chand that the aforesaid statement (Annexure P-1) was not made by Dharmender or that aforesaid DDR dated 14.11.2000 was not recorded by the Police. The Complainant in reply to the application (Annexure P-6) under Section 245 Cr.P.C. had not specifically denied the fact of making the aforesaid statement dated 14.11.2000 (Annexure P-1) by his Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [11] son Dharmender to the police of Police Station Nuh. Therefore, it was held that it stood established on record that the aforesaid statement (Annexure P-6) was made by Dharmender on 14.11.2000. It was further noticed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh that in the said statement (Annexure P-1), Dharmender had stated that on 14.11.2000 at about 8.00 p.m., an altercation took place between Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) and Suresh as both had consumed liquor and his father (Parkash Chand
- respondent) had separated them. Thereafter, Parkash Chand, father of Dharmender, went towards the houses of the 'Kumhar' community and after sometime Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) came to their house and by standing in front of their house, started abusing them. Dharmender and his mother Maya Devi as also his brother Satish came out from their house and his mother asked Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) as to why was he abusing them. Upon hearing noise of the altercation, the brothers of Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) namely Arjun, Surjan and Balli reached at the spot one after the other. Arjun gave a blow with an axe on the head of Dharmender. Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1), Surjan and Balli caused injuries to him by slapping him and inflicting fist blows on his neck and chest. The mother and brother of Dharmender rescued him otherwise the aforesaid persons would have caused more injuries to him. Dharmender was got admitted in the hospital at Nuh by his mother. In the present complaint, that is, the subsequent complaint (Annexure P-2) filed by Parkash Chand (respondent), it was noticed that it had no where been averred by the complainant (Parkash Chand) that the aforesaid statement (Annexure P-1) of Dharmender made on 14.11.2000 was wrongly recorded by the Police of Police Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [12] Station, Nuh. Besides, Dharmender while appearing in the witness- box as PW2 in the preliminary evidence had also nowhere stated that his statement was wrongly recorded by the Police of Police Station Nuh. It was also held that it had not been pleaded by the complainant (respondent herein) that the aforesaid statement dated 14.11.2000 (Annexure P-1) made by Dharmender was regarding some other occurrence than the occurrence as mentioned in the complaint (Annexure P-2) nor was it so argued by the learned counsel for the complainant. It was further noticed that according to the allegations in the complaint (Annexure P-2), the incident occurred in the house of the complainant (Parkash Chand) while in the statement (Annexure P-1) of Dharmender before the Police, injuries were caused to him by Jeet Ram (petitioner No.1) and others in front of the house of the complainant. Further, it was not the version of the complainant (Parkash Chand) that the accused Yad Ram caused injuries to his son Dharmender. Other discrepancies were also noticed and it was held that the allegations levelled by the complainant (Parkash Chand) in his complaint (Annexure P-2) against Yad Ram accused were not liable to be believed. Case FIR No.253 dated 16.11.2000 was registered at Police Station Nuh against Babu Lal, Singh Ram, Suresh Chand, Manohar, Dharam Singh and Hari residents of Nuh. Police report in terms of Section 173 CrPC had been submitted by the Police of Police Station Nuh. The said case was pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh. The said accused of FIR No.253 dated 16.11.2000 according to the prosecution formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly had caused injuries to Umrao Singh who was complainant Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [13] of the said case. Umrao Singh was accused No.6 in the present complaint (Annexure P-2). It was not disputed that Daya Chand (PW-3) was the real brother of Suresh Chand who was one of the accused in FIR No.253 dated 16.11.2000. It was further noticed that as per allegations of the complainant (Parkash Chand), the incident occurred on 14.11.2000 while the complaint (Annexure P-
2) was filed on 12.3.2001 after a period of about four months from the date of occurrence. At the time of arguments it was argued by learned counsel for accused Yad Ram that Yad Ram was related to Umrao Singh who got FIR No.253 dated 16.11.2000 registered with the Police of Police Station Nuh. Learned counsel for the complainant (Parkash Chand) did not controvert the said contention of the learned counsel for the accused. It was observed that in the said circumstances it seemed that the complaint (Annexure P-2) had been filed falsely by the complainant (Parkash Chand) against Yad Ram by changing the version as mentioned in the statement dated 14.11.2000 (Annexure P-1) of Dharmender so as to put pressure on the opposite party including accused Umrao Singh who was complainant in FIR No.253 dated 16.11.2000. It was also noticed that Yad Ram along with his application (Annexure P-6) had placed on record a certificate issued by Sh. R.C. Powaria HCS the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhajjar. The said certificate showed that it had been issued in official capacity. During arguments the learned counsel for the complainant (Parkash Chand) did not dispute the certificate that was submitted. Therefore, it was found that there was no ground to disbelieve the said certificate in terms of which it was inter alia mentioned that Yad Ram remained present at Tehsil Headquarters on 14.11.2000 and 15.11.2000. It was Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [14] certified by Sh. R.C. Powaria HCS the then Sub Divisional Magistrate that he had talked to Yad Ram on telephone during the night for some official purpose. The certificate coupled with the aforesaid statement (Annexure P-1) made by Dharmender on 14.11.2000 before the police of Police Station Nuh showed that the accused Yad Ram was not present at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence as was mentioned in the complaint (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, it could not be held that Yad Ram caused injuries to Dharmender as was alleged by the complainant (Parkash Chand) in his complaint (Annexure P-2).
The consideration process in terms of the said order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, therefore, is only qua the case of Yad Ram who had filed the application (Annexure P-6) under Section 245 Cr.P.C.. It does not relate or deal with the other accused. It is on the basis of the appreciation of the facts and circumstances in respect of Yad Ram who was Tehsildar including the fact that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had certified that he was present in the Tehsil on the date of the incident that it was considered and held that he was not present at the place of the incident when it had occurred. Accordingly, he was discharged. The petitioners admittedly had not filed any application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the case. In fact the order dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure P-5) had specifically relegated the petitioners to the trial Court for their remedy. It was observed that they may, if they so, desire raise all the issues that had been raised in their petition before this Court by making an application before the learned trial Court in accordance with law. No application was filed Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-13855 of 2009 [15] by the petitioners for seeking their discharge and the application (Annexure P-6) was only made by Yad Ram. Even though the petitioners had filed a revision petition against the order dated 20.3.2003 (Annexure P-8) whereby the application (Annexure P-6) of Yad Ram was dismissed, the said revision petition was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P-9). However, the case was sent back to the learned trial Magistrate for deciding the aforesaid application (Annexure P-6) filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. afresh. The said application in the order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon though mentions application of the petitioners but admittedly except for Yad Ram, the other petitioners before the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not filed the said application (Annexure P-6). Besides, this Court vide order dated 16.12.2005 (Annexure P-10) had declined to interfere as no prejudice was caused to the complainant who was the petitioner (now respondent) in case the application (Annexure P-6) under Section 245 Cr.P.C. was considered afresh in accordance with law. The said application having been considered only in the context of the case put forth by Yad Ram, the other petitioners cannot take the benefit of the same and claim that they were also entitled to its benefit.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 16, 2010 amit Amit Khanchi 2013.09.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh