Crl. Misc. No. M-35775 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35775 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 5,2011 Vicky and another............................................................. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ............................................................. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the Charge Sheet dated 14.2.2002 (P2) in FIR No. 19 dated 23.1.2001 under Sections 452/380/323/148/149 IPC, Police Station City Abohar, and order dated 6.10.2010 (P4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.1.2001 at about 9:45/10:00 P.M. complainant Dalip Kumar was present at his house and his brother Pardeep Batra had also come to see him at his house. They were talking with each other about domestic affairs. Kiran Bala wife of Rajesh Kumar daughter of Ramji Dass resident of Abohar called the complainant to come Crl. Misc. No. M-35775 of 2010 [ 2 ] out of his house as she wanted to talk with him for two minutes. When he was coming towards the outer gate of his house then in the meanwhile Vicky, Ramji Dass, both residents of Nai Basti Mansa, and two unidentified persons all armed with iron rods came in front of the gate of his house. Petitioner Kiran Bala told the above said persons that complainant Dalip Kumar kept her under his surveillance and he be taught lesson for keeping her under his surveillance. All the aforesaid persons entered into the house of the complainant. Ramji Dass gave iron rod blow on the left side of the head of the complainant as a result of which he fell down. While he was lying down on the ground then Vicky petitioner gave rod blow on his left leg above the ankle. Petitioner started beating the complainant with the Chapel. One of the unidentified persons gave rod blow to the complainant on his right arm. On raising alarm by the complainant and his brother Pardeep Kumar all the aforesaid assailants ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. While leaving the spot the aforesaid persons took away Rs.15,000/- from his house which were lying on the bed. On the basis of the statement of Dalip Kumar complainant, the present case was registered against both the petitioners and other co-accused vide FIR No. 19 dated 24.1.2001 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 452/323/380/148/149 IPC. After the completion of the investigation of this case, challan was presented against both the petitioners under Sections 452/323/34 IPC. After hearing, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, framed the charge against both the petitioners for the commission of offence under Sections 452/323/34 IPC vide order dated 14.2.2002. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Crl. Misc. No. M-11353 of 2009. The Crl. Misc. No. M-35775 of 2010 [ 3 ] Hon'ble Court disposed of the petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to file a revision against this order. The petitioners challenged the order dated 14.2.2002 by filing a revision petition. After going through the entire evidence and the material on record, the trial Court's order to frame charge against both the petitioners was upheld and the revision was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 18.10.2010. The petitioner has now challenged the aforesaid orders by filing this petition. Mr. Surinder Garg, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that a false FIR has been initiated against the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 was only 24 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. The FIR is the outcome of past litigation going on between the parties. A perusal of the FIR shows that there are direct allegations against the petitioner. The parameters set out in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others AIR 1992 SC 604 and Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 574 are not applicable in the present case to interfere and quash the FIR. Dismissed. 5.1.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE