Palwinder Singh and Another vs Nahar Singh and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No. 23/4 dated 11.2.2004 u/s 452, 324, 379, 427, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1, 1860, titled Nahar Singh versus Zora Singh and others (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the complaint reveals that Zora Singh and Jinder Singh had been impleaded as accused No. 1 and 2. However, later on while furnishing the process fee, names of the petitioners were given by the complainant without seeking correction of the names of accused No. 1 and 2 in the complaint.

Petitioners had filed a revision petition challenging the orders dated 17.12.2007 and 26.8.2011 passed by the Trial Court. The Court of Revision while dismissing the revision petition, has observed as under:-

After going through entire oral evidence, learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007 summoned both the revisionists alongwith their other associates to face trial u/s 323 & 506 IPC observing that said respondent has failed to prove any prima-facie case against all these accused so far as other offences u/s 452, 324, 379 & 427 of IPC were concerned. After this development process was issued by learned Magistrate and somehow or the other on 26.8.2013 when accused Zora Singh and Jinder Singh were not found to be served through bailable warrants of arrest, then both of these accused were again summoned for 28.11.2011 observing that Jinder Singh alias Rajinder Singh and Zora Singh alias Palwinder Singh be summoned for the above said date. It is the summoning order passed by learned Magistrate dated 1712.2007 and the above said order dated 26.8.2011 which have been impugned by the revisionists before this Court.

At the very outset it is significant to note that it has not been disclosed by the revisionist as to when they became aware of the fact that both of them have been summoned to face trial under Sections 323 & 506 of IPC. Judicial record pertaining to the above said complaint reveals that both of these revisionists have refused to accept service of the court issued way back in the year 2010 itself. That being so it can safely be presumed that both these revisionists became aware of this development much earlier and despite that they did not prefer to approach Superior Court challenging their summoning. It was just to show that this revision has been filed well within period of limitation that no such date of acquisition of notice regarding their being summoned as accused has been disclosed in para No. 1 of revision-petition. Therefore, present revision can well said to be not maintainable on account of its being barred by limitation. No such separate application of seeking condonation of delay has been filed either. Moreover, another order dated 26.8.2011 can also not be assailed successfully because no such effective order was passed on said date. Even otherwise also a lot of stress has been laid by revisionists that respondent/then complainant has concealed material facts from the court while leading preliminary evidence on record. Elaborating this fact it was also argued that enquiry conducted by police officials and the report submitted to SSP Khanna, application of respondent/complainant was found to be false, has been withheld by respondent. Similarly, the Punjab State Human Rights Commission had also closed the proceedings filed by the complainant. However, in this respect it will be sufficed to say that respondent/then complainant has specifically alleged in para No. 4 of his complaint that a separate complaint was made to SSP Khanna regarding the alleged occurrence but no action was taken by the concerned police officials. Similarly, in para No. 5 of body of this complaint again factum of his having filed written complaint before Punjab State Human Rights Organization made on 5.2.2004, but no action was taken on the basis thereof was disclosed. If at all respondent/complainant concealed both these developments taken by him before local police as well as before Punjab State Human Rights Commission even then same is not going to effect the competence of the learned Magistrate to summon revisionists for facing this trial. In fact, these revisionists would get an opportunity to confront respondent/complainant and all of his supporting witnesses in this regard and learned Magistrate will have another occasion to go through all these documents and other evidence adduced by these petitioners at the appropriate stage. Preliminary evidence of respondent/complainant has been considered by learned Magistrate while summoning the revisionists. Unrebutted evidence of complainant, Ranjit Kaur was sufficient to proceed against both of them u/s 323 & 506 IPC. These revisionists would get an adequate opportunity before learned lower court to prove their innocence after seeking reliance of these documents. At this stage evidence produced before learned Lower Court is to be seen while deciding this petition. So, virtually for all these reasons this court does not find anything wrong with the impugned orders. So, for all these reasons this revision stands dismissed. Let summoned record be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment. Revisionists are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 9.9.2013. File of this court be consigned to the record room.

The reasons given by the Court of Revision, while dismissing the revision petition, are sound reasons and call for no interference. Dismissed.