Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
129
2023:PHHC:118088
CRM-M-44478-2023
Date of decision: September 6th, 2023
Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Lalit Rishi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
setting aside the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure P-5)
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the
complaint of the petitioner i.e. COMI No.2117 of 2013 under Sections
323/506/341/342/294/510/120-B IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act,
Police Station City Bhiwani, titled as 'Ramesh Kumar Versus Ramniwas and
others' has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant petition may be
noticed as thus:-
Petitioner-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant')
filed complaint dated 06.06.2013 against the private respondents for
commission of offences under Sections 323/506/341/342/294/510/120-B IPC
and Section 3 of SC/ST Act, wherein he levelled allegations that on
29.11.2010, respondents No.1 to 3 at about 5:00/6:00 pm, after throwing cow
dung on his mouth, verbally abused him using caste based remarks. The
complainant was thereafter assaulted by the above respondents, as a result of
which he sustained injuries on his person. On the following day i.e.
30.11.2010, when the complainant was going to the Police Station to report
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2023.09.12 10:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh
the occurrence, which had taken place on the previous day, respondents No.6
to 8 forcibly took him to Police Post, Dinod Gate. Respondents No.4 to 7,
who are police officials, were in an inebriated condition then assaulted him
and made casteist utterances against him. Since the police failed to initiate
any action against the accused, the petitioner was left with no other remedy
but to file the complaint in question. On the basis of the pre-charge evidence
and other material on record; learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani,
acquitted the respondents by holding that the complainant had failed to
produce any evidence, much less cogent, which would warrant the
summoning of the respondents-accused.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has reiterated the
allegations levelled in the complaint. He has vehemently submitted that the
Court below gravely erred in discharging the accused, as at the stage of
summoning, only a prima facie case has to be seen, which was clearly made
out against them. He has further submitted that even though there was
sufficient cogent material on record to summon the respondents-accused, the
Court below had erroneously ignored the evidence of the complainant and
three other witnesses, who had stepped into the witness box, in his support.
It has further been submitted that the Court below had also turned a blind eye
to the medico legal report (Annexure P-2) of the complainant, wherein also
the nature of the assault carried upon him stood reflected. It has been lastly
argued that no doubt, an FIR qua the same occurrence was also lodged at the
instance of the opposite party, however, it is a matter of record that the
petitioner had been acquitted by the trial Court in the said case FIR vide
judgment dated 20.12.2012, which left no manner of doubt that the petitioner
had indeed been a victim of the atrocities inflicted upon him, by the
respondents-accused.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2023.09.12 10:05 relevant material on record.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh
5. Admittedly, no independent witness much less any eyewitness
was examined by the complainant with respect to both the occurrences i.e.
29.11.2010 and 30.11.2010. No doubt, three witnesses i.e. CW1 Dharambir,
CW2 Azad and CW4 Pawan did step into the witness box in support of the
complainant, however, they admittedly even as per their own deposition,
were not eyewitnesses of the alleged assault. Still further, a perusal of the
medico legal report (Annexure P-2) does not reflect any external injury on
the person of the complainant. The least that the complainant could have
done was to examine the doctor, who treated him after the occurrence in
question. However, admittedly no doctor was examined by the complainant
to substantiate the allegations of assault and the injuries sustained by him in
the occurrence in question. The contention of learned counsel qua his
acquittal in the case FIR, which had been registered against him at the
instance of the opposite party and hence, he being a victim at their hands, is
totally bereft of any merit. Though, the petitioner was acquitted in the case
FIR, however, it is a matter of record that the injured witnesses therein had
turned hostile qua the petitioner, as a result of which he earned an acquittal.
Moreover, the acquittal of the petitioner in the case FIR, which was
registered against him, cannot substitute the lacuna of any evidence in the
present complaint qua the petitioner.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various judicial
pronouncements has reiterated time and again that an accused in a criminal
case cannot be summoned mechanically. It would be relevant to refer to
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others
1998 (5) Supreme Court Cases 749, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:-
"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2023.09.12 10:05
I attest to the accuracy and two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh
the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his
mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He
has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint
and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof
and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in
bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the
Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of
preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on
record and may even himself put questions to the complainant
and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of
the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is
prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
7. As a sequel to the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation
to uphold impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned Court
below.
8. The instant petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
September 6th, 2023 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2023.09.12 10:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh
