The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a criminal complaint and summoning order. The court found prima facie evidence of offences and held the petition did not merit quashing.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint and summoning order is 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-
CRM-M-24018 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24018 of 2017 Date of Decision: 11.07.2017
Baljinder Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Harjinder Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: - Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate, for the petitioners.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
In the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing the criminal complaint No.07/25-08-2015 titled 'Harjinder Singh v. Baljinder Singh and others' under Sections 323, 324, 458, 148, 149, 506 IPC (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of learned JMIC, Malerkotla, and the summoning order dated 18.03.2017 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that earlier a DDR No.34 dated 05.02.2015 was lodged by Jagdip Singh – respondent No.2 at Police Station Sandorh, District Sangrur that on 03.02.2015 he along with Baljinder Singh petitioner at about 9.30 p.m. was attacked near Village Maanki by respondent No.1 and his accomplices. Respondent No.1 Harjinder Singh gave a sword blow on his head and his accomplice Bhupinder Singh gave baseball blow on his hip. They were brought to Government Hospital, Malerkotla by one Jasvir Singh. To take revenge Ravinder Singh 2017.07.12 14:32 against recording of the aforesaid DDR, the respondents have now filed a I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
false criminal complaint against the petitioners in which they have been
-2-
CRM-M-24018 of 2017
summoned vide order dated 18.03.2017 (Annexure P-2). From the contents of the complaint, it is evident that the same has been filed on account of property dispute.
Heard.
The impugned summoning order against the petitioners has been passed after recording the statements of nine witnesses by the trial Court. The learned Magistrate has categorically observed that ocular version of the complainant as well as eyewitness account coupled with the medical opinion prima facie discloses the commission of offence under Sections 323/458/148/149/506 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to put forth any justifiable reason to contradict the above finding of learned Magistrate in the impugned summoning order.
Thus, finding no merit in this petition, same is hereby dismissed.
(RAMENDRA JAIN) July 11, 2017 JUDGE R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Ravinder Singh 2017.07.12 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complaint under Sections 323, 324, 458, 148, 149, 506 IPC should be quashed on the ground that it was filed due to a property dispute.
Whether prima facie evidence including ocular version, eyewitness account, and medical opinion justifies issuance of a summoning order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Baljinder Singh and others
Harjinder Singh and others
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
