High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1022/2016dismissed

Bhagirath And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

2017-01-19Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR No.1022 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19, 2017 Bhagirath and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.K.B.Raheja, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 10.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against State of Punjab and other respondents, challenging the impugned order dated 16.02.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide which the application filed by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for addition of charge for offence under Section 458 IPC, was dismissed.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 10 appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

CRR No.1022 of 2016 -2From the record, I find that an application was filed during the pendency of the trial under Section 216 Cr.P.C. by learned Addl. PP for addition of charge under Section 458 IPC. It is stated that Sunita Kumari while appearing in the Court has stated that the occurrence took place in her house and in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she also stated that occurrence took place in her house. Therefore, charge under Section 458 IPC is also made out against the accused. In the reply, the accused stated that no offence is made out under Section 458 IPC from the evidence of the witness of the prosecution. It is also stated in the reply that earlier the case was pending before learned lower Court but no charge under Section 458 IPC was framed. As learned lower Court has committed the cross-case before Court of Session, therefore, present case has also been forwarded. The prosecution has not filed any application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. before learned lower Court for framing the charge.

Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide impugned order dated 16.02.2016, after discussing the statement of SI Paramjit Singh, dismissed this application. SI Paramjit Singh has stated during crossexamination that as per this investigation, the occurrence took place in the grain market. Therefore, statement of Sunita and Bhagirath is contrary to the investigation conducted by SI Paramjit Singh regarding place of occurrence. Otherwise also, it is a case of version and cross-version and the trial Court is to decide on the basis of evidence as to where the occurrence took place and to reach to the conclusion as to who was the aggressor party. As per investigation the occurrence took place in the grain market, therefore, no ground is made out for framing the charge under

CRR No.1022 of 2016 -3Section 458 IPC against the accused and the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. has been rightly dismissed by learned trial Court. Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed.

January 19, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No