Criminal Revision No. 868 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 868 of 1990 Date of Decision: 1st July, 2008 Gurcharan Singh …Petitioner Versus Dayal Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vivek Aggarwall, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hiteshwar Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Gurcharan Singh, petitioner, along with Jaspal Kaur, Jagir Kaur and Ishar Kaur had instituted a complaint against Dayal Singh, Dalbara Singh, Jarnail Singh, Harjit Kaur, Pritam Kaur, Ujaggar Singh and Ram Singh. It was stated that petitioner Gurcharan Singh is brother of Jaspal Kaur. Jagir Kaur is mother of complainants No. 1 and 2, whereas Ishar Kaur is mother-in-law of complainant No.2 Jaspal Kaur. Accused Harjit Kaur is widow of Balbir Singh, brother of Jasbir Singh, who is husband of Jaspal Kaur, complainant No.2. It is stated that Harjit Kaur after the death of Balbir Singh had married Jarnail Singh, accused No.3 on 14.1.1988. Accused No.5 Pritam Kaur is the wife of accused Criminal Revision No. 868 of 1990 2 No.7 Ram Singh and mother of accused No.l4 Harjit Kaur. It is stated that accused No.1 Dayal Singh, accused No.2 Dalbira Singh and accused No.3 were having good relations with accused No. 4 Harjit Kaur, accused No.5 Pritam Kaur and accused No.7 Ram Singh. It was stated that Har Singh son of Ram Singh had purchased a plot along with Jaspal Kaur complainant No.2 fro Ishar Kaur, complainant No.4. It was stated that possession of plot was delivered by Ishar Kaur complainant No.4 to Jaspal Kaur, complainant No.2 and said Hari Singh on 7.3.1988. It was stated that after Balbir Singh, husband of accused No.4 Harjit Kaur died in the month of April 1982, she is residing at her native village. Thereafter, accused No.4 Harjit Kaur married on 14.1.1988 with accused No.3 Jarnail Singh. Thus, Harjit Kaur has no concern with the plot purchased. It was stated that Harjit Kaur had threatened to take possession of plot and therefore Jaspal Kaur and Hari Singh filed civil suit fore permanent injunction against accused No.4 Harjit Kaur. It was stated that on 15.5.1988 at about 8.00 A.M. accused started abusing the complainant No.2 and caused injuries to the complainant party. It was stated that on 16.5.1988 the police had not recorded the version of the complainant, therefore, the present complaint was prepared on 25.5.1988. In support of the allegations made in the complaint Gurcharan Singh appeared as PW.1, Jaspal Kaur appeared as PW.2, Dr. Arun Chawla appeared as PW.3 and Gulzar Singh appeared as PW.5. On 9.12.1988, the accused were summoned to stand trial. On 7.7.1990, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar, discharged the accused. The trial Court held that prima facie no case for Criminal Revision No. 868 of 1990 3 framing the charge against the accused is made out. Against the order of discharge, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned Court below has held that the complaint Ex.PC, was made to the Director General of Police, Punjab. In that complaint, only Dalbara Singh, Dayal Singh and Jagir Singh were named as accused. Names of ladies i.e. Harjit Kaur and Pritam Kaur are nowhere figured in the complaint Ex.PC. Learned trial Court further held that the motive for filing of the complaint is a civil dispute pending between the parties. Complainant party intended to deprive accused No.4 Harjit Kaur of her inheritance after her husband Balbir Singh had died. Trial Court also concluded that there was a cross-version of the accused in which they had stated that they were caused injuries by the complainant party. A separate complaint titled as “Ram Singh and another vs. Jasbir Singh has been preferred by the accused. The findings of learned Court below cannot be said to be perverse, rather they are well reasoned and no interference is called for. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state that in the last 20 years, as to what happened to the complaint filed by the accused against the family of the petitioner. I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 1, 2008 “DK”