Varun Nanda v. Kulwant Singh Sub Inspector And ORS.

CRA-S-577-SB-2016 (O&M) -1248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-577-SB-2016 (O&M) Reserved On: 01.05.2025 Pronounced on: 16.05.2025
Varun Nanda .....Appellant Versus
Kulwant Singh Sub Inspector and Others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL

Present:

Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. (Legal Aid Counsel) **** 





The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the application under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code for initiating proceedings against the respondents for offence committed by them under the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. in relation to proceedings in the Sessions case titled as 'State Vs. Mandeep Nanda and Others' i.e. FIR No.386 dated 4.11.1998 under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC, 1860 read with Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, has been dismissed. 2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely implicated by the respondents in a false case relating to the alleged murder of one Jagir Singh son of Amar Singh. The murder was allegedly committed on 04.11.1998 and an FIR no. 386 dated 4.11.1998 under Sections

CRA-S-577-SB-2016 (O&M) -2302, 307, 149 and 148 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar on the statement of respondent No.2.-Avtar Singh. The trial Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2001 convicted the appellant alongwith his co-accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. In the said judgement, it was observed in para 21 and 22 that respondent No.3 was a planted witness and was introduced subsequently by the prosecution. The Court also observed that the recoveries were planted on accused-Mandeep Nanda and Varun Nanda and the evidence was fabricated by respondent No.1. PW-5 Sarbjeet Singh was also disbelieved while holding that he was never present at the spot and was introduced later. 3.

Against judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 04.04.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Jalandhar, an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.199-DB-2001 was preferred which was decided on 28.07.2009 by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and acquitted the appellant of all charges framed against him while observing that the witness-Sarabjit Singh possibly, to have fabricated injuries on his person in connivance with the police. Therefore learned counsel for the appellant states that all the respondents were liable to be prosecuted and punished under the provisions of law under Sections 191, 192, 194 and 196 of IPC. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2015. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that at certain places in the order passed by the trial Court concerned, certain observations while passing the judgment have been made by the learned Judge, however, it has resulted in conviction of the appellant alongwith his co-accused. It is argued that decision of the appellate Court supersedes that of the trial Court.

CRA-S-577-SB-2016 (O&M) -3The trial Court judgment is considered to be merged, meaning thereby the appellate Court's decision becomes the operative order while referring to the doctrine of merger.

5.

Moreover, this Court has acquitted the appellant and other accused by extending the benefit of private defence to the accused. It is also argued that in the proceedings under Section 340, Cr.P.C. firstly the material produced before the Court must prima facie establish a case for the complaint for the purpose of enquiry into an offence under Sections 195(b)(i) Cr.P.C.; and secondly, enquiry should be made into the alleged offence. For this purpose, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case "Iqbal Singh Marwaha and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwaha and Another", 2005(4) SCC 370 and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: 
 

            





  

  

 



   

    
!"#
$# $%          &  

'  



     (        

)  '*

       

 &      

)   + 

  &   ,

  

   

 %      &      & +&   

  

     (        

)     +&    

&

  

   

    
!"#$# $* (  &   & )  &    

& 

     

)&

  &    

  & 

 & 

    %   

  

    % 

 



      

)      

  

      

 & &     &        )&

          &   

 &      &         %        &  )     

             %          &     

 

   

    

      

     

 )   &         %      & 

      (          

 )  

  

 *    

 # $#$% 

CRA-S-577-SB-2016 (O&M) -4-

&      

     %

        

 

 & 

     & -&       

           

          & % 

   . 6.

Therefore, the appellant cannot pick and choose certain observations made by the trial Court and by the High Court and further, make it a basis for filing an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 7.

In view of above, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the decision rendered vide impugned order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

8.

Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. 16.05.2025 (H.S. GREWAL)
JUDGE
Whether speaking/ reasoned
:
Yes
/ No
Whether reportable
:
Yes
/ No