Mohinder Singh and ors. vs Amarjeet Singh

Jai Singh Sekhon, J. (Oral)

The accused petitioner have filed this revision petition against the order dated 3041988, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, summoning the petitioners to face trial, for offences under sections 323, 452 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the complaint of Amarjit Singh complainant, inter alia on the ground of lack of application of mind by the trial Court to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further averred that the above referred complaint is a device to put pressure upon the accusedpetitioners to effect compromise in the civil and criminal litigation interparties over the possession of some property.

There is no need to go into the details of the facts contained in the complaint as the appraisal of evidence for the purpose of summoning the accused for facing trial is the sole domain of the trial Court. The impugned order passed by the trial Court reads as under :

"1. Averments of complaint.

After receipt of complaint, statement of the complainant was recorded and opportunity was provided to the complainant to lead his preliminary evidence. Complainant Amarjit Singh appeared in the witness box as PW1, apart from examining PW 2 Kewal Ram and PW 3 Balkar Singh.

After the closure of the complainant''s evidence 1 have heard the complainant and have persued the case fully, thoroughly and minutely.

The complainant vide his statement recorded separately has given up accused No. 2 and 5 figuring in this case and has stated that he does not want to present them, thus names of accused No. 2 and be struck off from the title of the case. The allegations contained in the complaint are duly narrated by the complainant on oath in the court and his testimony is further corroborated by the eyewitnesses PW 2 Kewal Ram and PW 3 Balkar Singh, residents of the same locality, who have seen the occurrence personally. All the three witnesses have narrated the averments of the complaint on oath in verbatim. The testimony of three witnesses, at this stage, is unassailed, unimpeached and unrebutted.

After giving considerable thoughts to the preliminary evidence available on the file and facts mentioned in the complaint, I am of the opinion that there are sufficient reasons/grounds and a prima facie evidence on the file against the accused person for summoning under sections 323/452/506/34 Indian Penal Code, So, let the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 be summoned on filing of P. F., necessary charges, list of witnesses and copies of complaint.

The names of accused Nos. 2 and 5 be struck off from the title of the complaint as desired by the complainant and they need not be summoned.

Sd/

C.J. M., Karnal.

30.4.1988

A bare glance through the abovesaid order reveals that although the trial Court had not given the gist of the allegations contained in the complaint or figuring in the testimony of the complainant besides Kewal Ram (PW 2) and Balkar Singh (PW 3), the alleged eyewitnesses, yet all the same, it cannot be said that the trial court had failed to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the specific indications in the impugned order that the allegations contained in the complaint are duly supported by the complainant on oath and that his testimony is further corroborated by the eyewitnesses, Kewal Ram and Balkar Singh, who happen to be residents of that locality. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the trial court had failed to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case or that it has passed a mechanical order. The abovereferred view is supported by the rule of law laid down by the Division Bench of this court, in Criminal Misc. No. 2305M of 1977 decided on 3031978. In that case, the trial court simply stated in the impugned order that it has perused the preliminary evidence and the allegations in the complaint and that there are good grounds to proceed against the accused under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Alter elaborate discussion and disagreeing with the earlier views of Single Benches of this court in Niranjanlal Bawri v. The State and anr., 1975 Chandigarh Law Reporter 448 and K.L. Nagpal v. Sat Parkash Jindal and another, 1971 Chandigarh Law Reporter 152 and following the observations of the apex court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Neeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, AIR 1976 S.C. 1947, observed that the impugned order is a speaking order, as the Magistrate had considered the evidence.

This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot go into the merits of the case in coming to the conclusion that the accusedpetitioners had been falsely implicated. On the other hand the trial court is bound to consider all aspects of the matter while considering the case for the purpose of framing the charge.

For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 2451991. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.