IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of decision :30.08.2017
Shri Guru Singh Sabha
Rajinder Singh and another
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 :::
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 :::
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 )
1. Whether reportable? No
2. Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes
3 of 3
03-09-2017 09:32:36 :::