Allowed
Vinod & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/21908/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
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.
Crl. Misc. M-21908 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. M-21908 of 2013 Date of Decision : August 26, 2013
Vinod and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms Preeti Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Mr Salim Ahmed, Advocate for the complainant. ---<<><---
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) :
Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324 and 452 IPC. On receipt of report from the Radiologist, offence under Section 326 IPC was added to the heading of FIR as injury No.1 found on the person of Ashok Kumar and attributed to Vinod-petitioner was declared grievous in nature. Later-on, another opinion was received from the doctor, who stated that the injury attributed to Vinod-petitioner could be result of blunt weapon and, accordingly, the offence under Section 326 IPC was deleted and instead, offence under Section 325 IPC was added to the FIR.
Learned State counsel, after obtaining instructions from ASI Balbir Singh, Police Station Rozka Meo, District Mewat, has informed the Court that though the petitioners have joined the investigation but the weapons used by them in the occurrence could not be recovered.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners have committed serious offences by committing house trespass
Crl. Misc. M-21908 of 2013 -2-
and thereby causing injuries to the complainant party.
On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a case of version and cross-version as Sagar Devi-petitioner also received injuries in the occurrence.
Be that as it may, injuries attributed to Jagdev and Sagar Devipetitioners were found simple in nature. Though the injury said to have been caused by Vinod-petitioner was declared grievous, yet for the said injury, provisions of Section 325 IPC have been invoked. The offence under Section 325 IPC is bailable.
Resultantly, the petition is accepted and ad-interim order dated 15.7.2013 is made absolute.
August 26, 2013 pds
( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE
Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2013.08.27 10:40 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
Vinod and others
State of Haryana
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court