Crl. Revision No. 2372 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2372 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 24, 2011 Charanjit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) CRM No. 51920 of 2010 Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Nempal Singh is impleaded as respondent No.2. Main Case Petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.8.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, by virtue of which charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was framed. Crl. Revision No. 2372 of 2010 (O&M) 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. As per the case of the prosecution Nempal-respondent No.2 complainant lodged a report against the accused petitioner that on 11.8.2009 he (petitioner) had borrowed ` 20,000/- from him and thereafter he (peti- tioner) had also borrowed ` 2,00,000/- on different dates from him. On 12.8.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. the complainant board bus alongwith the ac- cused for Fazilka and when they got down from the bus on the bridge of Alamwala Canal, the accused took his briefcase from him and pushed him in the canal with an intention to kill him and misappropriated the money. However, on raising hue and cry the people brought out him from the canal and he was taken to the hospital in an unconscious condition. After the in- vestigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the challan enclosing there- with Medical Certificate of the accused. After going through the material, available on the record, the learned trial Court found that a prima facie case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused and accordingly he was charge sheeted for commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the alleged occurrence had taken place on 12.8.2009, whereas the FIR was lodged against the accused-petitioner on 31.8.2009 and as such there is delay of 19 days in lodging the FIR. The complainant has not been able to show why he has not reported the matter immediately after the occurrence. It appears that the complainant has cooked up the story and thereafter lodged a false case against the accused. Besides this, the accused-petitioner is about 60 years age and is suffering from 70 % permanent disablement and as such he falls under the category of physically handicapped. Physically handicap person having 70% disablement is not said to be in a position to push any hail and hearty person Crl. Revision No. 2372 of 2010 (O&M) 3 into the canal in the manner as alleged by the complainant but the learned trial Court has overlooked this aspect while framing the charge. Moreover, as per the case of the complainant he was pushed in the canal by the accused, but surprisingly there is no medical evidence on record to suggest that he has suffered any injury due to fell in the canal, as alleged by the complainant. The trial Court ought not to have framed the charge in a mechanical manner. The Investigating Officer as well as the criminal Courts must bear in mind that registration of criminal case and asking a person particularly who is having 70 % disablement to face criminal trial causes mental trauma, agony and harassment. Personal liberty is always at stake in criminal cases. No citizen should be asked to face the trial for an offence which is not at all made out. Criminal Court should not act as a rubber stamp of the Investigating Agency. Before framing the charge, the Court must look into material collected by the Investigating Officer to find out whether there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused. If the entire material is accepted in toto it would not lead to conviction rather framing of charge in such a case would be totally unjustified. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner-accused was a physically handicapped person and a medical certificate has also been placed on record showing the disablement of the petitioner, but despite this the learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused without taking into consideration all the material documents available on the record. Thus, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order as well as the charge framed against the accused is hereby quashed and the accused is discharged. (Alok Singh) Judge March 24, 2011 Anand