Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sanjeev vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 March, 2022

CRM-M-48827-2017                                                  -1-

     (235) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                                     CRM-M-48827-2017
                                             Date of decision : 11.03.2022

Sanjeev
                                                               ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Haryana & others
                                                           ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Nihul Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

            ****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambala, whereby an

application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner-

complainant for summoning respondent Nos.2 to 7 as additional accused

has been dismissed as also the order dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure P-1)

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the

appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.04.2017, has

been dismissed and the order of the learned trial Court has been

affirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.357 dated

14.12.2015 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 and 34

IPC at Police Station Mahesh Nagar came to be registered against 10

1 of 6

accused. The Investigating Agency after conducting the investigation

submitted its report under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 506 and 34

IPC against Amit Kumar S/o Rajeshwar, Vinod S/o Ram Pal, Paras and

Amar S/o Raj Kumar, the other six accused namely, Surender, Kaushal

Pal, Nand Lal S/o Shyam Singh, Suraj Bhan @ Rinku S/o Padam Pal,

Padam Pal and Pardeep S/o Aflatoon were to be found innocent placed in

column No.2. The trial commenced and during the course of the trial an

application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning

respondent Nos.2 to 7. The trial Court came to the conclusion vide order

dated 24.04.2017(Annexure P-2) that there was no evidence to summon

respondent Nos.2 to 7 and the evidence available was insufficient to

fasten prima facie guilt of the said respondents. It was also held that

there was no allegation that the Investigating Agency had not conducted

the investigation fairly and thus, the mere recording of the statement of

the complainant without anything more was not enough to summon the

accused.

3. The petitioner-complainant preferred a revision petition

against the said order of the trial Court dated 24.07.2017 (P-2) before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. The contention of the

petitioner-complainant was that he had specifically named the accused in

his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also in his deposition as PW-

1. As per him, specific injuries were attributed to the proposed accused

but the trial Court had illegally and arbitrarily ignored the evidence and

dismissed his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The proposed

accused on the other hand contended that there no specific role attributed

2 of 6

to the respondents, who were sought to be summoned. The learned

Sessions Court discussed the evidence of the complainant as also the

Medico Legal Report and came to the conclusion that he had received

seven injuries and all of them were with sharp edged weapons and

therefore, his oral version was contrary to the medical evidence,

inasmuch as, there was no injury with a blunt weapon on his person. The

Court also stated that the petitioner-complainant when appeared as PW-1

before the Court only reiterated his earlier version given to the police

and no new fact had come on record and thus, while relying on the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Hardeep Singh Vs. State of

Punjab, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623' and after hearing both the parties

and going though the entire material and documents on record, dismissed

the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

4. Against the said order dated 17.10.2017(Annexure P-2) of

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala as also against the order

dated 24.04.2017 (P-2) of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambala, the

present petition for quashing has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the

notice of this Court that vide order dated 20.12.2017 notice in this case

had been issued only to respondent No.2-Surinder (the proposed

accused). His contention is that Surinder, as per the FIR had been

attributed the role of having caused a 'Dhanda' blow on the left hand of

the complainant. The counsel refers to the MLR of the petitioner-

complainant-Sanjiv Kumar, which shows that injury No.7 on the left

3 of 6

dorsum hand adjoining the wrist has been caused with a blunt weapon.

The said injuries are reproduced herein below:-

"1. 3CM X 2CM WITH 3CM DEEP SHARP INSCISED WOUND OVER LATERAL ASPECT OF RIGHT KNEE ALONG WITH BLEEDING AND SWELLING.

2. 2CM X 2XM WITH 2CM DEEP SHARP INSCISED WOUND OVER MID OF RIGHT SHIN WITH BLEEDING WITH CREPITUS HEARD WITH SWELLING.

3. 5CM X 3CM WITH 3CM DEEP SHAR INSCISED WOUND OVER MEDIAL ASPECT OF RIGHT LEG WITH MASSIVE BLEEDING OBLIQUELY PLACED.

4. 2CM X 2CM WITH 3 CM DEEP SHARP INSCISED WOUND JUST ABOVE RIGHT MALLEO LUS WITH BLEEDING HORIZONTALLY PLACED.

5. 6CM X 3CM WITH 4 CM DEEP SHARP INSCISED WOUND OVER MEDIAL ASPECT OF LEFT LEFT WITH BLEEDING OBLIQUELY PLACED.

6. 2CM X 1CM WITH 1CM DEEP SHARP INSCISED WOUND OVER LEFT MID SHIN BLEEDING.

7. 4CM X 3CM WITH 1 CM DEEP FLAPPY LACERATION OVER LEFT DORSUM HAND ADJOINING THE WRIST WITH BLEEDING WEAPON BLUNT ADV XRAY/ORTHO.

S1S2 HEARD GCS 12/15 ADV 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ARE SHARP INSCISED WITH XRAYS/ORTHO OPINION NATURE AFTER OPINION NODULAR SWELLING OVER LEFT LATERAL HEAD WITH H/O LOC++ ADV SURGEON OPINION/XRAY PAT C/O LOC WITH MASSIVE BLEEDING FROM INJURY SITES HIS TROUSER WITH

4 of 6

CORRESPONDING INJURY SITES SEALED AND HANDED OVER TO POLICE P/A WAS TENDER AND SWELLING IN RIGHT HYPCHONDRIUM CHEST B/L CLEAR."

6. He thus, contends that the medical evidence is completely in

consonance with the ocular evidence so far as, respondent No.2-Surinder

is concerned and he thus, ought to have been summoned to face trial.

7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand

states that the orders of the learned trial Court and of the Lower

Appellate Court were rightly passed. Mere repetition by the complainant

in his deposition in Court as PW-1 is insufficient to fasten liability on

respondent No.2/proposed accused. He also submits that the medical

evidence is not in consonance with the ocular evidence as has been

rightly observed by the learned Lower Appellate Court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

9. Quite rightly, the notice in this case had been issued only to