Crl.Rev.No.2593 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.2593 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.3.2009 Ram Pal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of the order dated 12.9.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, framing charges under Sections 148,302,307,323,149, and 120-B IPC. As per the allegations in the FIR, and the order framing charges, the petitioner, who is the head of a religious institution known as Satlok Ashram, formed an unlawful assembly with his co-accused and in prosecution of their common object, committed offences while armed with deadly weapons i.e. guns, revolvers, lathies, iron rods, iron pipes, stones, bats etc. It is further alleged that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raj Kapur @ Pritam committed the murder of Sonu s/o Balwan Singh, inflicted fire arm injuries on various persons, committed offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC after hatching a Crl.Rev.No.2593 of 2008 2 conspiracy to commit the aforementioned acts. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sessions Judge has erred in exercising jurisdiction as while framing charges, it has ignored relevant material and has proceeded to draw uncalled for inferences against the petitioner. It is submitted that from 8.7.2006 to 12.7.2006, the petitioner was confined to the boundaries of his Ashram, as the Sub Divisional Magistrate had issued prohibitory orders. The allegation of rioting particularly within the premises owned by the petitioner is, therefore, clearly false. It is further submitted that the ahsram was surrounded by a hostile mob of 8000 people and despite extreme provocation, the petitioner and his followers maintained peace. However, at the instigation of local politicians, who worked the mob into a frenzy, the mob attacked the ashram. The police stood by as mute spectators and allowed the mob to invade the ashram. The petitioner's followers had no option but to defend themselves. It is further submitted that the deceased Sonu could not have died from a gun shot fired from the ashram. It is apparent from various reports, site plans etc. that the gun shot as alleged is a scientific impossibility. It is argued that in view of the inherent flaws in the final report, the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak should have discharged the petitioner, but instead chose to mechanically follow the dictate of the prosecution and frame charges without assigning any reason. It is prayed that in view of the illegalities that pervade the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, the present petition be allowed and the order framing charges be set aside. Counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, submits that at the stage of framing charges, a Court does not appraise the final Crl.Rev.No.2593 of 2008 3 report with the object of determining guilt or innocence, the value to be assigned to the evidence, the nature of the proposed defence but merely proceeds to appraise the final report, so as to assess whether the accused can be tried for the offence alleged. The arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner should, therefore, be rejected, as they primarily fault the learned Sessions Judge for failure to appraise the defence of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order framing charges and find no reason to interfere. As noticed in the narrative of facts, the petitioner is the religious head of an organization called Satlok Ashram. On account of incidents that began on 8.12.2006, a violent confrontation ensued between the inmates of the ashram and the local population that led to a riot, serious injuries to various persons and to the death of one Sonu. The petitioner and his co-accused were arrested for offences of rioting, murder, inflicting of injuries etc. After investigation, the police filed a final report followed by supplementary reports. Vide order dated 12.9.2008, the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, rejected the petitioner's prayer for discharge and framed charges. In my considered opinion, the alleged infirmities in the final report, the submission that as the ashram was attacked by a mob, the petitioner and his co-accused acted in self defence etc. relate to the petitioner's defence and are best left to be adjudicated by the trial Court, during the trial. While considering a final report, a Court does not embark upon a enquiry so as to ascertain the guilt or innocence of an accused, the truth or otherwise of the allegations, the evidentiary value to be attached thereto but merely appraises the final report, so as to ascertain, whether there is sufficient material to infer the commission of an offence, for which Crl.Rev.No.2593 of 2008 4 he may be tried. Whether the petitioner acted in self defence or the gun shot is scientifically impossible etc. are all assertions that would require a detailed appraisal of evidence, a jurisdictional course impermissible, to a trial court at the stage of framing charges, as also to this court in revisional jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak has appraised the final report and after a considered assessment of the material on record has proceeded to frame charges. No error of jurisdiction as would enable this court to accept the revision is discernible or has been established by the petitioner. Dismissed. 26.3.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE