This judgment dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order allowing witness summoning. The court held that invoking jurisdiction after a revision dismissal amounts to a second revision and found no grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference.
Petition for quashing of the impugned order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Crl.Misc.No.M- 12879 of 2012 (O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 12879 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.7.2012
Satish Kumar
.....Petitioner
versus
Sunita Rani .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Ms.Ritu Punj, Advocate, for the petitioner. ****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 18.1.2012 (Annexure P-6), whereby, application seeking summoning of witnesses was allowed and order dated 2.4.2012 (Annexure P-9), whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against order 18.1.2012 (Annexure P-6) was dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioiner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Complainant Sheo Ram had filed a complaint against Pira Lal and others under Sections 323, 354, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). The case of the complainant, in brief, was that he was working as a peon with Haryana Sahitya Academy at Panchkula. The accused persons were inimical towards the complainant and his family. Accused No.6 Parveen Kumar was working as a constable in Haryana police and was providing protection to accused Nos.1 to 5. Accused No.2 and 3 were harassing the daughter of the complainant by outraging her modesty.
2
Crl.Misc.No.M- 12879 of 2012 (O&M)
On 5.1.2005, the complainant was sitting in his house and his daughter was coming from outside towards her house. Accused No.2 and 3 met the daughter of the complainant in the street at about 5.30 P.M. and caught hold of her. Complainant raised hue and cry. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 then grappled with the daughter of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, the said accused caught hold of the complainant and in the meantime accused No.1, 4 and 5 also reached the spot and they all gave fist and kick blows to the complainant. On hearing alarm raised by the complainant, Rishi Pal, Bir Singh, Sarpanch and others reached the spot. Then all the accused fled away from the spot.
Complainant led his preliminary evidence. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were summoned to face trial by the trial Court vide order dated 12.5.2005. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application for permission to examine Naveen Singh and Banta Singh as witnesses. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 18.1.2012 (Annexure P-6). Revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 2.4.2012 (Annexure P-9)
Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
“Power to summon material witness, or examine
person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and
3
Crl.Misc.No.M- 12879 of 2012 (O&M)
the Court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”
Thus, as per the above provision, the Magistrate has ample power to summon any person as a witness at the stage of trial whose evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. Although the witnesses now sought to be examined were not mentioned in the list of witnesses but the Courts below had rightly allowed the application for summoning the said witnesses as the complainant is still leading his pre charge evidence. The plea of the complainant is that the witnesses now sought to be examined were also present at the time of occurrence. The accused will get the opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses.
It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
July 06, 2012 anita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of revision by Sessions Court.
Whether summoning of witnesses warrants interference to prevent grave miscarriage of justice.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Kumar
Sunita Rani
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
