CRR No.2182 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2182 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.02.2011 Gurdeep Singh .....Petitioner Versus Hardev Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Complainant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court impugning the order of acquittal dated 17.3.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Sessions Trial No.43 of 2009 under Sections 364/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts of the present case are that initially a compliant was filed before the learned Magistrate with inter alia following allegations: - “That the complainant was an employee in Punjab Police and posted at Ferozepur Cantt. The accused want to implicate him in false case because Mohinder Singh accused who is neihbour wants to get a room of the house of the complainant but the complainant refused to do so. It is alleged that accused Mohinder Singh, Darshan Singh, Bishan Dass, Prem Pal pressurized the complainant to give a room to Mohinder Singh due to which, the complainant CRR No.2182 of 2009 -2- filed an informatory application in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur on 4.4.1992. It is further alleged that on 16.4.1992 at about 6.30 p.m. accused Prem Pal Constable came to his house and took him to Police Post Basti Tankanwali in the presence of his son and wife where accused Bishan Dass Inspector along with other accused give him beatings and pressurized him to give a room of his house to Mohinder Singh, but he refused to do so. It is further alleged that on 18.4.1992 Inspector Bishan Dass stressed him to sell the room to Mohinder Singh for Rs.64,000/- and gave threats of dire consequences. On the same day, the accused got arrested the complainant and accused Mohinder Singh under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. It is further alleged that on 19.4.1992 at about 5.30 p.m. when the complainant after getting released on bail was going to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur along with his surety Sham Singh and his son Lakhwinder Singh for medical treatement, Bishan Dass Inspector who was in a van along with other police officials, took the complainant in a van and again gave him beatings in police station Ferozepur Cantt. The son and wife of the complainant gave telegram to D.I.G. Ferozepur in connection with the kidnapping of the complainant and non 21.4.1992 the complainant in unconscious position was handed over to his wife and son. It is further alleged that on 22.4.1992 the complainant himself appeared before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozpur and informed him about the entire incident, who suspended constable Prem Pal and initiated enquiry against the remaining accused. It is fruther alleged that on 9.10.1992 at about 7.30 p.m. when the complainant was coming to his house after performing his duty, accused Bishan Dass, Prem Pal and Darshan Singh stopped him and slapped him and gave threats to kill his family. When the complainant tried to stop them, then accused Bishan Dass told ASI Jagir Singh that the complainant is under the influence of liquor and he be got medically examined, on which ASI Jagir Singh took him to Police Post Basti Tankanwali and registered DDR in the register against him and got him medically examined and the doctor gave his report that the complainant has not consumed liquor. On 5.10.1992 the complainant moved an application along with CRR No.2182 of 2009 -3- medical report to the S.S.P. Ferozepur but no action was taken. The he filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court on 30.7.1996 which was decided on 27.8.1999 but when no action was taken against the accused, complainant filed the present complaint against the accused.” Learned Magistrate vide order dated 7.1.2003 pleased to summon the accused to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 364/36/323/120-B/506/148/149 IPC. Accused Sukhdev Singh and Bishan Dass were declared proclaimed offenders because they did not appear before the Magistrate despite of due service on them. However, Mohinder Singh was reported died. Remaining accused/respondents had appeared and their trial was committed to the Sessions Court vide order dated 25.1.2007. Learned trial Court has framed charges against the accused/respondents to face trial under Sections 364-A/323/506 IPC. From the prosecution side, five witnesses were produced. Learned trial Court having examined every material/evidence on the record passed the order or acquittal, which is under challenge before this Court in the revision. Undisputedly, alleged occurrence is of 19.41992, however, complaint was filed in the year 2000. Revisionist had filed writ petition after almost four years from the date of occurrence before this Court complaining that on his complaint no action was taken by the police, however writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.8.1999. Present complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist after almost four months from the date of decision of this Court. Delay has not been explained beyond doubt as to why complaint CRR No.2182 of 2009 -4- was not filed soon after the incident or soon after the dismissal of the writ petition. Not only this, no medico-legal report was obtained about the alleged injuries. Complainant himself is the police official, hence it cannot be presumed that he is not aware of the legal procedure. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court as per dictum of this Court in CRR No.135 of 2010 titled “Pritam Singh Vs. Arvinder Singh and others” can be invoked only when a good piece of evidence is escaped from the notice of the Court proving the guilt or Court below has committed manifest error or law or jurisdictional error. In the present case from the perusal of the record, I am satisfied that learned trial Court has not shut out or overlooked any evidence, which could prove offence against the accused. I do not find any manifest error of law or jurisdictional error or procedural error on the part of the trial Court resulting in wrong judgment. In the opinion of this Court, judgment impugned does not require any interference. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge February 21, 2011 R.S.