Deepak Chadha v. Rakesh Sethi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.A-810-MA of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: May 11, 2016 Deepak Chadha ...Applicant

Versus

Rakesh Sethi

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Anuj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Applicant-Deepak Chadha has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Rakesh Sethi, challenging the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.

It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is also stated that applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury in case the judgment passed by learned trial Court is not set-aside. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.

As per the record, the complainant Deepak Chadha filed a

-2complaint against accused Rakesh Sethi under section 326, 342 and 506 IPC. The brief facts of the case as noted down in the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2014 are as under:- "In brief the complainant has averred that an FIR No.629 dated 14.10.2002 was registered at Police Station 17, Chandigarh on the basis of complaint given by complainant Deepak Chadha on 10.10.2002. It is alleged in the application that on previous night at about 9.30 p.m. somebody stopped his vehicle and beat him with hockey due to which his one tooth was broken. He expressed suspicion over brother of his divorced wife named Rakesh Sethi. On the basis of application, FIR was registered and matter was investigated. Therefore, the cancellation report was submitted by the police alleging therein that the allegations levelled by the complainant were not found true. Thereafter, the matter was sent for re-investigation. After re-investigation also the cancellation report was filed. Vide order dated 19.08.2006 the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh has treated the protest petition as complaint."

The complainant examined himself as CW-1 and deposed as per his version. CW-2 Shukla Chadha, mother of the complainant, deposed that her son came home in injured condition along with two other persons. When she opened the door, the person accompanying her son, told her to take care about her son and she took him to his room. Her son was injured as he suffered injuries on his mouth and arm and he went to his bed. CW-3 D.K.Pathank deposed regarding medico legally examination report of Deepak Chadha. CW-4 Ashok Kumar deposed that on 09.10.2002 at about 9.30 p.m., he was standing near chowk. He saw on the other side of the road where 1520 persons were present and there was a fight. He also went there and saw that 3-4 persons were hitting Deepak Chadha holding dandas, Rakesh Sethi was holding hockey and rod and he gave

-3hockey blow to Deepak Chadha in his presence, to whom he knew earlier.

Learned JMIC, Chandigarh, after appreciating the evidence acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 24.01.2014 and held that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the present occurrence as his presence at place of occurrence is highly doubtful.

From the record, I find that Rakesh Sethi is the real brother of wife of the complainant. In the FIR, he nowhere stated that 3-4 persons gave him injuries nor he named Ashok Kumar eye witness that he was present there and has seen the occurrence. Secondly, it looks improbable that Rakesh Sethi is real brother-in-law of Deepak Chadha and Deepak Chadha could not recognize him. The FIR has been registered on 14.10.2002. Even at that time, the name of the assailant was not mentioned. Rather, it is stated in the FIR that he has suspicion that he was his brother-in-law as there is matrimonial dispute between Deepak Chadha and his wife regarding divorce, which is pending. In the FIR, the complainant stated that someone has caused him injury meaning thereby, Rakesh Sethi was not present at the spot.

Otherwise, there was no reason as to why the complainant has not recognized his real brother-in-law and why he has not named even after four days of the occurrence when the FIR was got registered. So, there is only suspicion against Rakesh Sethi and further, there is no mention of the eye witness present at the place of occurrence.

-4this occurrence was not told by the complainant to his mother at that time on that very day. All these facts create reasonable doubt in the version of the complainant.

Learned JMIC, Chandigarh has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. The findings given by learned Magistrate are correct, as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse i.e. against the evidence and law. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2014 passed by learned JMIC, Chandigarh, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court.

Keeping in view above facts and circumstances, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed. May 11, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE