Crl.Rev.No.2346 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.2346 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.5.2009 Prit Mohan Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner challenges an order dated 16.9.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 193/201,120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's father was murdered. The petitioner made a complaint to the police that after postmortem, Dr.Charan Kamal Devgun, forwarded the viscera for chemical examination, but when the packet was opened, the viscera was found replaced by a female uterus. After investigation, the police presented a final report and for reasons best known to them, cited the petitioner as an accused. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record, whether in the final report or in the documents appended thereto that could possibly suggest the commission of any offence Crl.Rev.No.2346 of 2008 2 by the petitioner. It is submitted that the reference by the trial court to FIR No.9/06 registered under Section 302 IPC is irrelevant, as the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that the petitioner was initially suspected for the murder of his father. On this account the Investigating Officer made a statement that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.9/06. However, on a specific query addressed to counsel for the State of Punjab, to refer to any evidence that would prima facie suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offences under Sections 193,201,120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has fairly conceded that the matter should be reconsidered by the trial court, after appraisal of the final report. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It appears that at some stage of the investigation, the police suspected the petitioner's involvement in the murder of his father. However, eventually the petitioner was not cited as an accused. It would be necessary to mention here that the present FIR was lodged by the petitioner complaining that the viscera forwarded for chemical examination had been replaced with a female uterus. It belies comprehension as to how the petitioner could be charged as an accused in the present case. However, as complete facts are not available, it would be appropriate that the learned trial court reconsider the matter in its entirety. Consequently,the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, is set aside and the learned trial court is directed to Crl.Rev.No.2346 of 2008 3 consider the final report afresh for the purpose of framing charges. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 25.5.2009. 4.5.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE