The High Court dismissed a revision petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the summoning of petitioners in a criminal case. The court held that the issues were factual and required evidence appraisal, dismissing the petition.
The revision petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of summoning the petitioners was upheld.
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.
CRM M-37348 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-37348 of 2014
Date of decision : 27.01.2016
Sukhdev Singh & ors.
....Petitioners
V/s
Nirmal Singh & anr.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent no. 1.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
RAJAN GUPTA J.
This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint no. 31440 dated 08.01.2010 titled as Nirmal Singh vs. Sukhdev Singh & ors. in which petitioners have been summoned to face trial under sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 148 & 149 IPC vide order dated 20.01.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order on the ground that no offence is made out against the petitioners. A false story has been concocted by the complainant. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar summoned the petitioners without proper appreciation of facts. In fact complaint in question was a counter-blast to the FIR, Annexure P-5 registered against the complainant by petitioner no. 8. Besides, ingredients of offence under sections 452 IPC are not made out.
AJAY KUMAR 2016.01.29 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRM M-37348 of 2014
2
Plea has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent no. 1. According to him, petitioners have been rightly summoned by the trial court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
A complaint was lodged by complainant Nirmal Singh alleging that there was a taur in village Kala Bahian in the name of complainant. On 04.09.2009 at about 3.30 p.m. petitioners alongwith other accused demolished the boundary wall of the said taur in order to take forcible possession of the same. When complainant and his son resisted, they were caused injuries by the petitioners alongwith other accused. His son Tarlochan Singh sustained serious injuries in the occurrence and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Kartarpur. Matter was reported to the police but of no avail. Resultantly, instant complaint has been filed by the complainant. Stand of the petitioners is that they have been summoned to face trial without application of mind. Admittedly, trial is making some headway. Issues raised before this court are purely factual in nature. Findings of same can be given only after appraisal of evidence. Plea that ingredients of offence under section 452 IPC are not made out is also mis-conceived. Complainant examined four witnesses including himself in support of his allegations. After appreciating the preliminary evidence, trial court decided to summon some of the persons named by the complainant as accused. I find no infirmity with the order. Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
January 27, 2016
Ajay
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
AJAY KUMAR 2016.01.29 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the complaint under Section 482 CrPC when the alleged offence involves factual disputes requiring evidence appraisal.
Whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 452 IPC are made out based on the available evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukhdev Singh & ors.
Nirmal Singh & anr.
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
