Guru Singh Sabha vs Rajinder Singh And Another on 30 August, 2017

CRM-M-39154-2016 -:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-39154-2016
Date of decision :30.08.2017

Shri Guru Singh Sabha
…… Petitioner

Versus

Rajinder Singh and another
…… Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

***

Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.

***

H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing

of order dated 08.01.2016 framing charge for offence under Section 406

only against the accused whereas omitting to do so as regards offence under

Section 420 IPC has been filed by Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Nilokheri

District Karnal – complainant in the case titled as Shri Guru Singh Sabha

vs. Rajinder Singh and another pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate

Ist Class, Karnal.

The grouse of the petitioner is that a complaint under Sections

419, 420, 406 and 379 IPC has been filed by it against Rajinder Singh and

1 of 3
03-09-2017 09:32:35 :::
CRM-M-39154-2016 -:2:-

Balbir Singh Aatish in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal.

After the preliminary evidence was recorded, the Court vide

order dated 23.10.2013 had summoned both the accused to face trial for

offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, whereas declining to summon

such accused for offences under Sections 419 and 379 IPC. Both the

accused had put in appearance, it is stated that the evidence led by the

complainant for the purpose of summoning was treated as evidence for the

purpose of framing charge. Thereafter the Court had framed charge for

offence under Section 406 IPC against the accused. The complainant felt

aggrieved by that order and moved an application that charge under Section

420 IPC be also framed but as such application was declined, feeling

aggrieved, he has filed the present petition.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondent who has put

in appearance through their counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides, going

through the record.

A perusal of order dated 08.01.2016 goes to show the non-

application of mind on the part of the trial Magistrate. On the top of the

order presence of “APP for the State” has been marked instead of marking

presence of “counsel for the complainant”. In the first line, it is mentioned

that from the “report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and other accompanying

documents”, a prima facie case punishable under Section 406 IPC is made

out against the accused, which is contrary to the factual position since it was

not a “police challan” case but a case of “private complaint”. Nothing has

been mentioned that no offence under Section 420 IPC was made out and no

reason has been given for the same, therefore, this order is not sustainable

2 of 3
03-09-2017 09:32:36 :::
CRM-M-39154-2016 -:3:-

and is accordingly set aside by way of acceptance of the petition.

The trial Court is directed to hear learned counsel for both the

parties and to pass fresh order after hearing them by giving reasons for

arriving at the conclusion and then to proceed further with the trial.

The exercise be completed within a period of 15 days on receipt

of this order in the Court.

( H.S. MADAAN )
30.08.2017 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot

1. Whether reportable? No

2. Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes

3 of 3
03-09-2017 09:32:36 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *