Vikasdeep Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, ''the Cr.P.C.'') has been filed praying for quashing the summoning order dated 05.07.2010, (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, and judgment dated 22.09.2010, (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the findings recorded by the learned summoning Court were upheld. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure P-1 and the investigation carried out in pursuance thereof, wherein the

Investigating Officer has recorded that no case against the petitioners herein is made out whereas prima facie case under Sections 406 and 498A IPC is made out only against the husband, Bikramjeet Singh and mother-in-law, Davinderpal Kaur.

During the course of the trial, on the statement made by the complainant, the petitioners were summoned to face trial on the specific allegations that the complainant was given beatings by petitioner No.1 whereas petitioner No.2 had given push to the complainant due to which she fell down from the stairs and suffered injuries. Against this summoning order, the petitioners preferred revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.09.2010, (Annexure P-4).

The solitary arguments raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the observation of the investigating officer, the petitioners could not have been summoned. Moreover, there are no specific allegations against them.

However, the complainant when appeared before the learned trial Court, specific allegations with regard to beatings and giving push were made against the petitioners. Accordingly, they were summoned by the learned Court below. The veracity of the statement of the complainant is to be gone into by the trial Court. In the instant case, as against the report of the investigating officer, who prima facie found the petitioners innocent, there are two judgments of the competent Courts of law, which were arrived upon after hearing both the parties. Though, there is a general tendency to rope in all the family members including the distant relatives, but in the instant case, the other family members including the sister-in-law have not been named. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant has made an effort to rope in all the family members and the version given by her is exaggerated with regard to the involvement of the family members or the injuries suffered by her.

Keeping in view that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners and the trial Court is seized of the matter, this Court feels that no case for quashing the proceedings at this stage is made out.

Dismissed. This order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.