Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Pal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 February, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
123 CRM No. M- 5911 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.02.2014
Shiv Pal and others .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Vijay Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
SURINDER GUPTA , J.
This petition has been directed against order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2013 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the trial Court was dismissed while the revision filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed.
The court of Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul vide order dated 29.01.2013 summoned petitioners No. 1 to 3, 6, 8 and 9 for offence under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148 and 149 IPC on the complaint filed by respondent No. 2. As per the complainant, the occurrence had taken place on 06.10.2010. On that day, he had gone to the field to start the motor, which was prevented by the petitioners. As the complainant had share in that motor, he insisted on starting the motor, which annoyed the petitioners and they gave Sharma Ritu 2014.02.25 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M- 5911 of 2014 (O&M) -2- him kicks and blows. After reporting the matter to the police, he returned to his house. The petitioners, who were armed with lathi, Jeli and Kularhi followed him in his house and caused injuries to him, his wife and son.
Learned trial Court did not find any prima facie case against petitioners No. 4, 6 and 7 but in the revision, the order of the trial Court was set aside. In view of the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, the revisional Court found prima facie case against petitioners No. 4, 6 and 7 and set aside and the trial Court was directed to reconsider its order.
The other petitioners have also challenged their summoning order but their revision petition was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is delay of three days in reporting the matter to the police. The occurrence took place on 06.10.2010 but the matter was reported to the police on 09.10.2010 and there is no explanation for the delay in reporting the matter.
The revisional Court has found prima facie case against all the petitioners. The trial Court vide order dated 29.01.2013 had ordered the summoning of petitioners except petitioners No. 4, 6 and
7. The version of respondent No. 2 in the complaint was supported by the eye witnesses and the medical evidence. The delay in reporting the matter to the Sharma Ritu 2014.02.25 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M- 5911 of 2014 (O&M) -3- police is not a factor, which goes to the root of the case at this stage so as to quash the summoning order. The delay can be explained by the complainant during the trial of the case.
Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no merit to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash order dated 29.01.2013 and 05.02.2014.
There are no merits in the petition and the same is dismissed.
(SURINDER GUPTA)
February 18, 2014 JUDGE
rts
Sharma Ritu
2014.02.25 09:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh