Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jul 2012CRM-A/821/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Chandigarh dismissed an application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the Quadratic Court's acquittal of respondents charged with offences under Sections 452, 341, and 509 IPC. The trial court found the prosecution case weak and properly acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Harjinder Singh and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.Misc. A.No. 821-MA of 2011

¶2

¶3

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. A No. 821-MA of 2011 Date of Decision: July 19 ,2012

¶5

Sukhdev Singh ..........Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Harjinder Singh and others ..........Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶9

Present: Mr.Gauttam Dutt,Advocate for the applicant

¶10

Sabina, J.

¶11

Respondents No. 1 to 4 were tried for commission of offence punishable under Sections 452, 341, 509 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC'). The trial Court vide judgment dated 24.8.2011 acquitted respondents No. 1 to 4 of the charges framed against them. Hence the present application with the prayer for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C'.) has been filed by the complainant.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the instant application deserves dismissal.

¶13

The prosecution case in brief is that on 31.3.2006 accused armed with weapons had entered the premises of the complainant. On alarm raised by the complainant, many persons gathered at the

¶14

¶15

Crl.Misc. A.No. 821-MA of 2011

¶16

spot and,thereafter, all the accused persons left the spot with their respective weapons. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No.148 dated 1.4.2006 under Sections 452, 341,509 IPC was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sangrur.

¶17

In the present case, the complainant is tenant of the shop owned by the respondents. In the occurrence, none from the complainant party had suffered any injury. Learned trial Court has noticed that no independent person had been examined by the prosecution to support the complainant version. The complainant party is facing trial under Sections 307,323,506,188 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. It has also been observed by the trial Court that the allegation against the accused was that they had intention to insult the modesty of Gurjit Kaur. However, Gurjit Kaur was not examined during trial. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly acquitted respondents No. 1 to 4 of the charges framed against them. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misleading of evidence by the trial Court.

¶18

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat 2002(1)RCR(Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

¶19

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-

¶20

“We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the

¶21

Crl.Misc. A.No. 821-MA of 2011

¶22

¶23

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1)scc 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.

¶24

In the facts and circumstances, the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused are just and proper and there is no merit in the criminal miscellaneous application seeking leave to appeal in terms of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

¶25

Accordingly, the criminal misc. application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶26

( Sabina ) Judge

¶27

July 19, 2012

¶28

arya

Sukhdev Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Robert Gaaru Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amarjeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Anokh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Charnajit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.