Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savitri Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054631
CRM-M-20416-2015 -1 2024:PHHC:054631
216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20416-2015
Date of Decision:20.04.2024
Smt. Savitri Devi ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Ms. Deepika Advocate for
Mr. S.K Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482
Cr. P.C with a prayer to quash the judgment dated 17.04.2015, passed by the
Court of Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby the revision petition filed by the
respondents No.2 to 7 was allowed and the summoning order dated
06.06.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Mahendergarh was set aside.
2. In the present case, the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint
titled as "Savitri Devi Vs. Sardara Singh and Others", under Sections
148,149,323,452,506 of IPC by alleging that she was a housewife and her
husband used to remain outside the house, in connection with his labour work.
The accused used to raise quarrel with her without any justification. At about
08:00 AM on 30.08.2013, when she was washing utensils in her house and her
son had gone outside to serve water to the Cow; all the accused by forming an
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054631
CRM-M-20416-2015 -2 2024:PHHC:054631
unlawful assembly and duly armed with lathis, jellies and dandas came there
and Sardara, who was armed with a walking stick (baint), gave a blow on her
nose with it. Dhannu gave a blow with jelly on her right leg and Sunda, who
was armed with an axe, tried to give a blow with it, but her son Manoj came
there and caught hold the axe. Sardara gave stick blows to her son and Savita
caused an injury on the waist of her son with a stick. Lalita and Kela caused
injuries with stones and she fell down and was given fist and kick blows by the
accused. Son of the complainant, Krishan and Dinesh rescued her from the
accused, otherwise they would have given her more beatings. While leaving at
spot, all the accused extended the threat that they would be done to death, on
getting an opportunity in future. The complainant and her son went to Police
Post Akoda and moved an application and got their medico-legal examinations
done at Community Health Centre, Mohindergarh and X-ray of the complainant
was also done. Instead of taking action against the accused, the police had
presented a calendra under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C against her son Parveen, but
he was not even present at the spot. The petitioner also moved an application
before the Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, but no action was taken against
the accused, as the local police had colluded with the accused. Ultimately, the
FIR was not registered and the petitioner was constrained to file the present
complaint.
3. In preliminary evidence, the complainant examined Manoj Kumar
as CW-1 and appeared herself as CW-2. She closed the preliminary evidence
after tendering documents Ex.P1 to P6. During the course of trial, the Trial
Court ordered the summoning of the respondents No.2 to 7 under Sections
148,149,323,452,506 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved, respondents No.2 to 7 had filed
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054631
CRM-M-20416-2015 -3 2024:PHHC:054631
a revision petition, which was allowed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Narnaul.
Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case,
there was sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence to prove that the
respondents No.2 to 7 had caused injuries to the petitioner and her family
members. Even, the copy of the MLR of the petitioner was exhibited as Ex.P6
and the copy of the DDR,Ex.P-3 clearly shows that the application was moved
by her to Police Post Akoda. She had also exhibited her application moved to
the SSP, Narnaul as Ex.P-5. He further contends that Revisional Court had
completely overlooked the scope of the proceedings at the time of disposal of
the revision petition. The Revisional Court is never expected legally to delve
deep into the merits of the case and the impugned judgment is grossly
erroneous. The Revisional Court had exercised the judicial discretion arbitrarily
and has decided the revision petition like a full fledged trial, after appreciating
the evidence. In fact, such exercise by the Revisional Court was impermissible
in law and the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record.
6. In the present case, the petitioner had examined her son Manoj
Kumar as CW-1, who stated that the accused had caused injuries to his mother.
Lalita gave a lathi blow on the backside of the his chest, whereas, Kela and
Lalita threw brickbats in the house and all the accused brought him and his
mother on the floor and gave them fist and kick blows. However, said facts
were not mentioned in the complaint. It was mentioned in the complaint that
stone blows were given by Savita and not by Lalita. Apart from that, it was
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054631
CRM-M-20416-2015 -4 2024:PHHC:054631
also stated that Ravi, Prem, Krishan and Dinesh had rescued them, but they
were not examined by the complainant. Savitri, complainant appeared as CW-2
and mentioned the details with regard to the injuries, caused by the accused.
However, the statements of CW-1, Manoj Kumar and CW-2 Savitri, petitioner
were inconsistent and the cumulative reading of the statements of both the
witnesses would demolish the case of the complainant. Apart from that, it has
been alleged that Manoj Kumar had watched the accused causing injuries to his
mother. It is highly improbable that Manoj Kumar, who is son of the
complainant, would stand at the place of occurrence as a spectator and he was
silently watching six accused causing injuries to his helpless mother. Thus, the
version of the complainant was highly unbelievable.
7. Apart from that, the Trial Court has also noticed the various
discrepancies, which are appearing in the testimonies of various prosecution
witnesses. No doubt, the Revisional Court is not expected to fathom deep into
the merits of the case and is only supposed to see the prima facie case against
the accused, but when the case of the complainant does not inspire confidence,
it is safe to drop the charges against the accused. In the present case, detailed
findings have been recorded by the Revisional Court, after due appreciation of
the preliminary evidence and the revision has been correctly allowed. Apart
from that, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any material
irregularity, illegality or perversity. Detailed findings have been recorded by the
Revisional Court, while setting aside the summoning order dated 06.04.2014
(Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Mahendergarh.
8. In view of the above, the present case is ordered to be dismissed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
20.04.2024 JUDGE
hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
