Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2014CRR/3033/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a criminal revision petition. The court rejected the argument that the police investigation or witness statement should override the trial court's order summoning the petitioner for trial based on complainant allegations and injuries.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed without granting relief to the petitioner.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Revision No. 3033 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : February 11, 2014

Anil Kumar

... Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana and another

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Dr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.

¶10

Surinder Gupta, J

¶11

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 3.8.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala partly allowing the revision petition filed by the applicant-complainant (respondent No.2 herein) against the order dated 5.1.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala.

¶12

Briefly stated, a case for offence punishable under Sections 323/325/506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station Mullana under FIR No.165 dated 29.6.2004. Though many persons were named as accused by the complainant, but the police filed challan only against accused Ashok, Sushil and Pardeep Kumar.

¶13

After framing of charge, the statement of complainantrespondent No.2 was recorded. The complainant moved application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Dayal Chand alias Dayala, Sahab Singh, Amit Kumar alias Monu, Balwinder alias Balla, Jitender Kumar alias Bittu and Anil, but the same was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 4.7.2011. The revision petition filed against that order was withdrawn with permission to file fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶14

The respondent No.2 again moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of aforesaid persons as accused to face trial which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 5.1.2013. The respondent No.2 preferred revision against order dated 5.1.2013 which was partly accepted and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face trial Kumar Deepak 2014.02.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

Crl. Revision No. 3033 of 2013 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

while the revision petition qua the remaining accused persons was dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is solitary statement of the complainant which was also looked into by the police during investigation of the case while submitting the report that the petitioner has been found innocent. As per respondent No.2, the petitioner gave blow with ' gandasi push ' on his mouth. In the medical examination, two teeth of the respondent No.2 were found broken with swelling in gums but no corresponding injury was found on his lips alleged to have caused by blow given on the mouth of the respondent No.2-complainant. As per the complainant, accused Sushil caused blow on his nose and it is quite possible that two incise teeth of upper jaw of respondent No.2 were broken due to the injury caused by Sushil Kumar. Mam Chand eye witness has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶19

The legal principal that the provisions of Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. are to be pressed into service upon the primary satisfaction of the court that there is material on file to proceed against the person in the present case is not disputed. In this case, specific allegations were levelled against the petitioner in the FIR and also in the statement of the complainant recorded by the police. The medical evidence qua the injuries on the person of the petitioner was also produced. The police has discarded the evidence on file by not challaning the petitioner. Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. vests in the Code power to correct the error of Investigating Agency and to pass order to summon any person if it appears from the evidence that he has committed any offence and can be tried together with other accused for such offence.

¶20

In this case, the trial court declined the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Ambala after scrutiny of the evidence produced before the trial court did not find any case to summon five persons sought to be summoned by the prosecution in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. With regard to the petitioner, observations made in para 13 of the impugned order reads as follows :-

¶21

“13. So far as role of respondent Anil Kumar is concerned, there are specific allegations and injury on the mouth of the complainant has been attributed to him when complainant

¶22

Kumar Deepak 2014.02.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

Crl. Revision No. 3033 of 2013 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

stated categorically that respondent Anil Kumar gave gandasi push on his mouth. If at all there is no corresponding injury on the lips of the complainant on his mouth, then it is not sufficient to brush aside the statement of complainant Jai Raj at this stage........”

¶26

The mere fact that the police has not challaned the petitioner on the statement of the complainant and that PW Mam Chand has not named the petitioner, in his statement to the police, is no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. There is direct attribution of injury supported by the medical evidence, on the person of the complainant-respondent No.2. There exists reasons for passing the order to proceed against him along with other accused.

¶27

The order of the Revisional Court suffers from no legal or factual infirmity calling for interference.

¶28

This petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

February 11, 2014 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge

¶30

Kumar Deepak 2014.02.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Mayank Jogi and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gurdeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Narsher Dureja @ Naresh Dureja Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Iqbal Singh Alias Pal Singh and Another Vs Mandeep Kaur W/O Dalbir Singh

Akaljeet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.