IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1418 of 1999 Date of decision: 4th August, 2008 Madan Lal and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Arora, AAG Haryana for the State. Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the complainant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Madan Lal; Narain Dass; Gurcharan Balmiki; Sonu Ram and Loku Ram against the State of Haryana and Brij Bhushan. In the present case, complaint (Annexure P-1) was instituted by complainant, respondent No.2 Brij Bhushan under Section 120-A, 149, 188, 378, 390, 441, 442 and 506 IPC. It was stated in the complaint that complainant was owner in possession of the land measuring 30 Kanals 11 Marlas. It was further stated that the complainant purchased 1 Kanal 7 Marlas land in Rect. No. 226, Killa No. 19/2, situated at village Siwan vide registered Sale Deed dated 27th January, 1988 from accused No.1, petitioner Madan Lal. It was further stated that on 24th January, 1988, complainant entered into partnership business of rice shelling of M/s Parkas Rice and General Mills situated at Siwan with accused No.1 and 2 Criminal Revision No. 1418 of 1999 (petitioners) having share to the extent of 65 per cent. It was further stated that on 17th May, 1990, accused No.1 and 2 retired from the above stated Firm vide Dissolution Deed dated 17th May, 1990. It has been further stated that thereafter, accused No.1 and 2 conspired with accused No.3 to 5 and on 20th October, 1992 at 2.00 p.m. they, armed with deadly weapons started threatening and abusing the complainant and his servant Phool Singh. Phool Singh was given beatings and he was threatened that he would be liquidated. It was stated that after breaking open the locks, robbery was committed and various goods, which have been mentioned in para 12 of the complaint, were taken by the accused on a point of gun on 23rd October, 1992. Mr. Rakesh Gupta appearing for the petitioners has stated that there is civil litigation pending between the parties. Reliance has been placed upon two judgments of Civil Court on the ground that complainant failed to prove that he is owner in possession of the premises. It has been stated that two suits preferred by the complainant to this effect that he is owner in possession of the premises, have been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in not taking into consideration the judgments of the Civil Court at the time of framing of charge. It has been held in State of Orissa v. Devinder Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 297 that the documents/ judgments, on which accused intend to rely, cannot be taken into consideration at the time of framing of charge. The accused-petitioners, during the course of cross- examination or while leading defence evidence, can prove the judgments and make their submissions before the trial Court at the relevant time. 2 Criminal Revision No. 1418 of 1999 The argument that one of the charge formulated was in contradiction to the findings of the Civil Court, is not sufficient to allow the present revision petition. A perusal of chargesheet (Annexure P-3) shows that petitioner has been charged for offences under Section 120-B IPC, Section 148, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and also for offences under Section 379/ 395 IPC and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. It is before the trial Court, whatever evidence is led, truth and veracity of the allegations will be examined. In a revisional Court, I cannot do any appraisal of the evidence. Hence this petition is liable to be dismissed. At the time of framing of charge, Court has to formulate prima facie presumptive opinion. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that because of finding of Civil Court that complainant has failed to prove possession, no injury was given to the complainant and witnesses. In the present case, charge was framed against the petitioner on 9th October, 1999. The learned trial Court, at the time of framing of charge, in para 12, 13 and 14, held as under: “12. Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant. A reading of provisions of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would indicate that a Sessions Judge can discharge an accused if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, he finds that there is not sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if after such consideration and hearing, the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence, then charge will be framed. 13. Reading sections 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at 3 Criminal Revision No. 1418 of 1999 the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance, whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under sections 227 and section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to thing that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 14. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra etc. etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa etc. etc. 1996 (2) RCC 606 held that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials cannot be gone into. The materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. In Krishan Pal Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 683, it was held that charge can be framed even on weak evidence without caring whether it would result in conviction or acquittal of accused. Sufficiency of evidence whether it would end in conviction or acquittal is not supposed to be seen by Magistrate/ Court. Even though accused may have a defence, but the same has to be left to be decided at an appropriate forum. That was also the case, in which, complainant was a partner, but the accused was not admitting the complainant as partner. The accused were held guilty of offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was not a civil liability.” 4 Criminal Revision No. 1418 of 1999 The findings of the Court are just, appropriate and no interference is called for. The present petition is dismissed, however, anything stated herein will not be construed as an expression on merits of the case. Since in the present case, complaint was filed on 7th May, 1993 and the charges were framed on 9th October, 1999, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months after the receipt of certified copy of this order. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 04, 2008 rps 5