Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039481
CRR-891-2023(O&M) 1 . 2024:PHHC:039481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
111 CRR-891-2023(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 19.03.2024
Malkit Kaur ............Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ..............Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present Mr.L.S.Mann, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Pradeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab
assisted by ASI Jagjeet Singh.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J (ORAL)
1. The instant revision petition is filed to throw a challenge to the order
dated 17.03.2023 with parse a zimni / interim order whereby, proceedings regarding
framing of charge has been recorded.
2. The petitioner has placed on record the charge sheet by way of
additional Criminal Misc. Application, which was already taken on record as
Annexure P-7. It transpires from the record that the petitioner has already approached
this Court for quashing of the FIR, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn,
however, with liberty to file an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The relevant
extract of the order dated 02.03.2023 is read as under:-
"After going through the judgment of the Supreme Court dated
September 14, 2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No 1562 of 22
Kanchan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to the
petitioner to move the competent Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
seeking therein the petitioner's discharge.
The above prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for."
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039481
CRR-891-2023(O&M) 2 . 2024:PHHC:039481
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to challenge the order
(supra) has submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever, to frame the charges under
Section 307 IPC, against the present petitioner, and the only allegation against the
petitioner, is that, she has given thapa blow (an instrument used in the village, to
clean the clothes) to the injured Veerpal Kaur, and the injury which was suffered by
Veer Pal Kaur, only attracts the penal provisions of Section 323-C IPC. The Court
without examining the role of the petitioner, framed the charges under Section 307
IPC against the present petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the charge sheet is
erroneously drawn documents which needs the interference of this Court, while
exercising its statutory power of provisions.
FACTS OF THE MATTER
4. The instant revision petition has been registered on the statement of
Jagir Singh son of Nazar Singh, who is brother-in-law of the son of the present
petitioner. The relevant extract of the FIR reads as under:-
"Stated that 1 am a resident of above mentioned address and
my elder sister namely Veerpal Kaur was teaching at Adarsh School
before her marriage. The marriage of my sister was solemnized with
Gursharan Singh s/o Hardev Singh r/o Naruana, in the year of 2015
and who was working as a Police official in the police department. My
sister is having a daughter namely Amanat who is 2.5 years old. After
about 2 years of solemnization of marriage, the in-laws family of my
sister, started quarrelling with my sister. In this regard, earlier,
compromise was effected in police station Civil Lines Bathinda, Police
station Women Cell Malout through panchayat. Now also, my sister
Veerpal was living at her village Mithdi due to aforesaid domestic
reason. On 24.7.2020, on Friday, at Lambi, the aforesaid Gursharan
Singh and his father Hardev Singh came to shop of Sarpanch Varinder
Singh alongwith their panchayat and they had told us to come to their
village through panchayat. At this, I alongwith my sister Veerpal Kaur,
sarpanch Varinder Singh and other respectable of the family went to
the village Naruana at the house of sarpanch Teja Singh and there
Gursharan Singh alongwith his father Hardev Singh and other
respectable persons were also present. As per the order of panchayat,
today on 2.8.2020 at about 11, time was fixed at the house of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039481
CRR-891-2023(O&M) 3 . 2024:PHHC:039481
Gursharan Singh and today I in my car Ford Figo no.PB-11BH-5240
alongwith my sister namely Veerpal Kaur, her daughter Amanat,
Bahadur Singh sarpanch Baari and Gurinder Singh sarpanch Mithdi,
reached at the house of Gursharan Singh. We were also accompanied
by Angrej Singh, Avtar Singh, Pargat Singh, Harpreet Singh, all
residents of Mithdi and Kartar Singh r/ ° Mahina, who had came in
their Innova car. When we reached at the house of Gursharan Singh
then gate was closed and I knocked at the gate then after 2/3 minutes,
Gursharan Singh suddenly opened the gate and he was having a pistol
in his hand and he fired with his pistol towards me in order to kill me
but I suddenly kneeled down and I entered into my car running. In the
meantime, Hardev Singh who was having 12 bore rifle, came at the
gate and fired a shot with his rifle towards me in order to kill me which
passed through above my arm. Malkiat Kaur mother of Gursharan
Singh who was having thapa in her came outside while abusing who
gave 3-4 blows of thapa on the backside of my sister Veerpal Kaur and
Veerpal Kaur remained standing there, Gursharan Singh after having
pistol in his hand, started damaging the driver side glass of my car and
Gursharan Singh also gave blow on the front glass of my car with his
pistol and due to this reason, the glass of my car got broken. Then he
pointed out the pistol on my temple but same could not be fired. We sat
in our car and came towards the police station. In the way, I got the
full magazine of the pistol of Gursharan Singh in my car and when I
counted the bullets, there were 4 lives cartridges and which I am
presenting to your goodself. Gursharan Singh and his father had fired
upon me with intention to kill due to grudge of living my sister at their
house. Malkiat Kaur gave injuries to my sister Veerpal Kaur so that
she may not cohabit in their house. Statement has been got recorded
and is correct. Kindly take legal action."
5. It is trite law that at the time of framing of charge, the learned trial Court
is required to evaluate the evidence for the purpose to ascertain under which offences
accused can be tried. The charge sheet Annexure P-7, although which is not
challenged before this Court, perusal of which reveals that the petitioner has been
charged under Section 307 IPC, with the aid of Section 34 IPC. From the allegations
as levelled in the FIR (surpa) as well as from the final reports, it transpires that the
petitioner along with other co-accused, with an intention to kill assaulted the victim
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039481
CRR-891-2023(O&M) 4 . 2024:PHHC:039481
and one of the co-accused caused gun shot injury to the complainant. It further
transpires that the petitioner was very much involved, and actively participated in
causing injury with the weapon of offence, as alleged to be carried by her at the time
of incident. Therefore, learned trial Court concerned has not erred in framing of
charge under Section 307 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC.
6. Counsel for the petitioner to raise the issue of false implications and non
sharing of common intention, cannot be adjudicated by this Court, specifically when
the issue of framing of charges against the present petitioner is under consideration
before this Court.
7. In view of the above recorded facts, this Court do not find any error in
order of framing of charge. Further, it is apt to note that despite giving opportunity to
petitioner to file petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C, by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 02.03.2023 (supra), the petitioner did not prefer any
application.
8. Therefore, the instant revision petition infact, seems to have been moved
with sole purpose to delay the ongoing trial. The instant petition is ordered to be
dismissed, however, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all such pleas, which have been
raised before this Court through the instant petition before the learned trial Court
concerned at an appropriate stage of the trial.
9. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
19.03.2024 (KULDEEP TIWARI)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
