Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Cr. R. NO. 154/13 Page 3 of 26 pages Petitioner no 3 caught hold of the respondent no. 2 from whom respondent no. 2 freed himself and ran inside his house . The petitioner no. 2 fired a shot at the respondent no. 2 which got lodged at the door of the house. Neighbours gathered at the spot and petitioners fled away from the spot after injuring Shri Gautam who was present at the farm house and threatening the respondent no. 2. Thereafter respondent no 2 filed an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. FIR was registered. Ld Trial Court has summoned the petitioners vide order dated 07.10.2013, and had rejected the untraced report as filed by the Investigating Officer.

4. I have heard arguments from Sh. Samrat Nigam, Ld counsel for revisionist Attar Singh and others and from Shri Mohinder Pal Singh, Ld counsel for revisionist Pritam Singh and another. I have also heard arguments from Ld Additional P.P for State Shri Subhash Chauhan and Shri Raj Kumar, Ld counsel for respondent no.2.

5. Matter was argued by Shri Samrat Nigam, Advocate on behalf of revisionist Attar Singh and others and same arguments were adopted by Shri Mohinder Pal Singh, Ld counsel for revisionist Pritam Singh. It was argued on behalf of revisionists that parties to the case are real brothers and nephew and are having long standing property dispute between them and many litigations are pending between the parties. It was argued on behalf of the revisionists that IO has not filed the cancelled report but has submitted the untraced report. No independent witness has been examined as neither PW Gautam nor PW Sukhjinder, Advocate, who are alleged to be with the complainant at the time of incident have deposed before the IO.

Cr. R. NO. 154/13 Page 5 of 26 pages As regards the bullets and cartridge cases alleged to have been recovered from the spot, it was argued that licensed weapon of revisionist Attar Singh is 12 bore gun and not 9 mm revolver, whereas cartridges found at the spot admittedly were of 9 mm caliber. Ld Trial Court had not referred the matter for further investigation on filing of untraced report by police and since there was nothing new found or placed before Ld Trial Court, there was no occasion for the Ld Trial Court for summoning the present revisionist. It was also argued by Ld counsel for revisionists that Ld Trial Court has taken the cognizance on the untraced report filed by the police official and has suo­moto directed to add section 307 IPC , though there is no evidence to that effect. It is also submitted by Ld counsel for revisionists that Protest Petition as filed by the complainant, respondent no. 2 herein should have been treated as complaint, and the complainant should have been directed to lead evidence but Ld Trial Court has not appreciated the Protest Petition in that sense. It is further argued that presence of revisionist has not been shown by the IO at the scene of crime. It was also submitted by Ld counsel for revisionist that the complainant has filed Protest Petition before Ld Trial Court with the allegations that police has not investigated the matter properly and has not taken proper exhibits and thus investigation has not been conducted in fair Cr. R. NO. 154/13 Page 6 of 26 pages and just manner. Since Ld Trial Court has not referred the matter for further investigation, there was no prima facie evidence before Ld Trial Court for taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the present revisionist. Hence, Ld counsel for revisionists has prayed that revision petition be allowed and impugned order dated 7.10.2013 be set aside.

6. On behalf of respondent no. 2, Shri Raj Kumar, Ld Advocate has argued the matter. He has submitted that after the untraced report was filed, the complainant ie respondent no. 2 obtained the certified copy of the same and he was given the certified copy of untraced report along with the case diary of the police. It is also argued on behalf of respondent no. 2 that IO had not mentioned that any witness was examined by the IO and no document has been filed by the IO in respect to the report. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that in the present case repeatedly Investigating Officers were changed without there being any complaint by the complainant and IO has not filed the statements of witnesses along with final report. Ld counsel for respondent has also objected on filing of untraced report by the police and had stated that since name of accused persons are given in the complaint, there was no occasion for the IO to file untraced report.