Criminal Misc.No.M-27535 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-17.9.2010 Ranjit Singh s/o Babu Ram ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The epitome of the facts, which need a necessary mention for deciding the limited core question, for deciding the present petition filed by petitioner Ranjit Singh son of Babu Ram, is that complainant Sonu alias Sandeep and Bablu alias Padam Singh son of Jai Pal were working as Salesmen on the liquor vend/shop. On 29.7.2007 at about 10 P.M., after closing the liquor vend, Bablu had left the shop with cash, while the complainant Sonu alongwith Subhash was going on motorcycle to other liquor shop. As soon as, they reached near the place of occurrence, (Chhajju Ram Chowk), in the meantime, all the accused came there. They pulled out the rope in between the road and signaled them to stop the motorcycle. One of them pulled up his country made pistol and inflicted the various injuries/blows to the complainant and demanded the cash, failing which, the accused threatened them with dire consequences of elimination. Thereafter, the accused tied the complainant and his companion Subhash with a piece of cloth (Parna) and were thrown in the nearby fields. The accused snatched the mobile, currency notes and other articles from them and fled away from the spot. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution, the accused caused injuries to the complainant with country made pistol, snatched the cash, mobile, other articles and robbed them. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Sonu alias Sandeep Criminal Misc.No.M-27535 of 2010 2 recorded by ASI Balram Singh, the present case was registered against the four accused, namely petitioner Ranjit Singh, Subhash Singh, Vedpal alias Bedu and Devender Singh, vide FIR No.241 dated 30.7.2007 (Annexure P4) on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 394 and 120-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal. As accused Devender Singh absconded, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender, vide order dated 28.2.2009. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, all the accused (except Devender Singh proclaimed offender), were charge sheeted for the commission of aforesaid offences and the case was slated for prosecution evidence. The trial Court recorded the statements of two prosecution witnesses, which prima facie proved the commission of crime punishable under section 397 IPC triable by the Court of Session. It necessitated the prosecution to file an application for the commitment of the case to the Sessions Court, invoking the provisions of section 323 Cr.PC. 4. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Session, by virtue of the impugned commitment order dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P1). The accused appeared in the Court of Session in pursuance of the commitment of the case. They were accordingly charge sheeted under sections 397 and 120-B IPC by way of order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P3). 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of committing Magistrate, the petitioner and his other co-accused filed the revision petition, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P2). 6. The petitioner Ranjit Singh still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders/judgment (Annexures P1 to P3) and filed the present second revision petition (though terming it as petition under section 482 Cr.PC). That is Criminal Misc.No.M-27535 of 2010 3 how, I am seized of the matter. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 8. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner did not use the pistol, so, no offence under section 397 IPC is made out against him, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1975 SCC(Crl.) 336 and of this Court in case Paviter Singh v. State of Punjab 1992 (2)RCR (Criminal) 233, are at all applicable to the facts of this case, wherein accused Phool Kumar had a knife in his hand. He was carrying a deadly weapon open to the view of the victim sufficient to frighten or terrorize them. Sequelly, in Paviter Singh's case (supra), accused was not armed with any weapon and no injury had been caused by him to the witness at the time of alleged occurrence. The allegation against him was that Manmohan Singh caused injuries to the witness, while he was in the company of his co-accused Paviter Singh. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases, it was observed that it is not always necessary that section 397 IPC is attracted in such situation. 9. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner at this stage of the controversy. 10. As is evident from the record in the instant case there are direct allegations that the accused hatched conspiracy and committed the heinous crime. It is not a matter of dispute that the case was also committed to the Court and the Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused under sections 394, 397 and 120-B IPC as well. Section 120-A IPC defines and postulates the criminal conspiracy to mean that “when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such an Criminal Misc.No.M-27535 of 2010 4 agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy, which is punishable under section 120-B IPC. Thus, as there are direct allegations that the accused hatched conspiracy and committed the heinous offence, stopped the motorcycle of complainant by pulling out the rope in between the road, caused repeated injuries from the butt of the country made pistol, tied them with a piece of cloth (Parna), snatched the cash, mobile, other articles, robbed and threw them in the nearby fields, therefore, no case for quashing the impugned orders is made out. 11. The other feeble argument of the learned counsel that as neither there was any cogent evidence on record nor the Magistrate has recorded any valid reason, while committing the case to the Sessions court, therefore, the impugned commitment order (Annexure P1) is illegal, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. At the stage of commitment of the case, the Magistrate is not required to appreciate or deeply discuss the evidence on record. He is duty bound to commit the case, if it appeared to him that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session as envisaged under section 207 Cr.PC. Whether the accused committed a criminal conspiracy and whether they have robbed the complainant in furtherance of their common intention or what offence the petitioner has committed, would be a moot point, to be decided by the trial court after framing the appropriate charges and after receiving the prosecution evidence in this relevant connection. 12. Be that as it may, but it cannot possibly be saith at this stage that the petitioner has committed no offence under section 397 IPC or commitment order (Annexure P1) is illegal in any manner in this context. 13. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. Keeping the evidence of the prosecution and other material on record in focus, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session for trial, vide Annexure P1. The revisional Court did not find any merit, recorded valid reasons and dismissed the revision petition, vide impugned judgment (Annexure Criminal Misc.No.M-27535 of 2010 5 P2). The Addl.Sessions Judge again re-examined the matter and duly framed the charges against the accused under the aforesaid sections, vide order (Annexure P3). Such impugned orders cannot legally be set aside in second revision petition, which is otherwise barred under section 397 (3) Cr.PC, though levelling it in a petition under section 482 Cr.PC, unless the same are illegal and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned orders by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the contrary arguments of learned counsel “stricto sensu” liable to be and are hereby repelled and the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Needless to state that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. 17.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes /No