Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamla vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-5112 of 2009 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-5112 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.3.2009
Kamla
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.R.S.Manhas , Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by Kamla under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of the order dated 25.9.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, vide which the protest petition filed by her was dismissed and untraced report submitted by the police was accepted.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of the impugned order is as under:-
"The complainant Smt.Kamla wife of Ram Lal, Caste Ahir, aged 38 years, resident of Dhani Chatriyan lodged an FIR to the effect that on 20.9.1996, complainant and her daughters were sleeping in the court-yard of their Dhani. Criminal Misc. No.M-5112 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Ramlal husband of the complainant and her two sons namely Prem and Jai Singh also sleeping near the main gate outside the Dhani. After hearing hue and cries, she along with her daughters got up and saw that her husband Ram Lal and sons had received injuries. The assailants were having lathis and iron rods. One of the assailants inflicted gandasi blow to her husband. One of the assailants took up her almirah key and took away her valuable belongings from her almirah. All the assailants were Katcchadhari and they painted their faces with black paint, therefore, she could not identify the assailants. She brought her husband and injured sons to the hospital and they were medico legally examined. Upon receipt of the rukka with regard to the injured Ramlal; Prem, Jai Singh and Kamla, ASI Guriya Ram recorded the statements and thereafter, investigated into the matter. After completion of investigation the untrace report was filed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the signature of the petitioner had been obtained by the police on blank paper, while she was admitted in the hospital. The petitioner had named the assailants when her statement was initially recorded by the police but the same were not mentioned in her statement by the police. Civil litigation was pending between the parties. Serious Criminal Misc. No.M-5112 of 2009 (O&M) 3 injuries had been inflicted by the accused party on the person of the complainant party.
In the present case, after registration of the FIR, an untraced report was submitted by the police after investigation. The same was sent for re-investigation by the Magistrate and after re- investigation again untraced report was submitted. Notice of the same was issued to the petitioner and she filed a protest petition alleging that the injuries had been inflicted on the complainant party by Ram Murti, Partap and others with gandasis, iron rods and lathis. Motive behind the occurrence was that Ram Murti had earlier attempted to commit murder of Ram Lal, husband of the petitioner. The said matter was compromised with the intervention of panchayat. The petitioner had thumb marked her statement recorded by the police, while she was admitted in the hospital and the same was never read over to her. In the initial statement made by the petitioner before the police, she had stated that the assailants were 3-4 persons, who had painted their faces black and were 'kachhadhari'. She could not identify the assailants. Thereafter, the petitioner made allegations that the assailants were Ram Murti, his son and others and, thus, has involved ten persons in this case. Thus, the petitioner had made material improvements in her statement which render her statement untrustworthy.
In these circumstances, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad had rightly held that the protest Criminal Misc. No.M-5112 of 2009 (O&M) 4 petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed and the untraced report submitted by the police was liable to be accepted. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence, calls for no interference.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 16, 2009 anita