SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ravinder vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 1 May, 2018

CRM-M-18077-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-18077-2018
Date of decision:-1.5.2018

Ravinder
…Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another
…Respondents

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

Present : Mr.Bhawesh Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

By way of filing the present petition, petitioner Ravinder

seeks quashing of order dated 13.12.2017 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri in Criminal revision Petition No.CRR-16

of 2016 upholding the order dated 27.1.2016 and charge dated 6.4.2018

against the petitioner under Section 406 IPC by Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri in a case titled “State of Haryana Versus

Sunder and others”, where the petitioner had been summoned as an

additional accused while allowing application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

According to the petitioner, his name is not mentioned in

the original complaint and he was named by complainant Naresh Kumar

when his statement was recorded in the Court, therefore, there is no

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 21:37:53 :::
CRM-M-18077-2018 -2-

reason to summon him but the trial Court wrongly did so and learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri wrongly affirmed that order.

I have gone through the order passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri while allowing

application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. directing that Ravinder (present

petitioner) and Krishan be summoned as additional accused whereas

declining such request qua SI R.S. Dhankhar.

Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has observed

that prima facie a case under Section 406 IPC is made out against

Krishan son of Mange Ram and Ravinder son of Krishan Kumar.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri while dismissing the

revision petition has given valid reasons for upholding the orders passed

by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri and dismissing the

revision petition. He has kept in view the observations made by the

Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Versus State of

Punjab and others 2014(1) RCR(Criminal) 623 observing as under:

In the present matter, the complainant has categorically

mentioned the name and role of revisionist Krishan in his

original complaint. Further, in his testimony before the

Court, he has mentioned that Krishan got prepared the

documents and got his signatures on same. He has also

mentioned the name of revisionist Ravinder being involved

in the crime. He has further mentioned in his cross-

examination about extension of death threats by accused

persons including revisionists Ravinder and Krishan. The

police has exonerated Krishan and has not charge-sheeted

2 of 3
06-05-2018 21:37:54 :::
CRM-M-18077-2018 -3-

any of the revisionist, but at the same time, the documents

shown by learned counsel for the complainant today

reveals that departmental action has been directed against

Investigating Officer SI Pawan Kumar. The trial is at the

initial stage, and no harm will be caused to any of the co-

accused if the revisionists are tried together. There is more

than a prima facie evidence in the form of testimony of

complainant mentioning their names and role. Though it

cannot and it should not be observed that the same will

result into conviction or not, but at the same time there is

no reason to disbelieve the same on face of it without

completing the process of law. In fact, the trial would be

the best mechanism to ascertain the truth finally in the

given circumstances. Thus, there seems to be no infirmity in

the decision of the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the

present revision petition stands dismissed.

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned

orders passed by the Courts below, which might have called for

interference by this Court.

The petition being without merit stands dismissed

accordingly.

(H.S.MADAAN)
1.5.2018 JUDGE
Brij

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 21:37:54 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation