Crl. Misc. No. M-32203 of 2009 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32203 of 2009 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: August 25, 2011 Krishan .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and another ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of criminal complaint dated 25.07.2003 entitled Chander Pal vs. Krishan and Lucky (Annexure P-1). The petition also challenges order of summoning dated 20.11.2006, placed on record as Annexure P-2, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and order passed by revisional Court Annexure P-3 dated 29.10.2009. Allegedly, an incident took place on 21.11.2002, on account of which complainant-Chander Pal was rendered unconscious. He was referred to PGI. Complaint came to be filed with the allegations that the injuries had been caused by petitioner-Krishan and a person named Lucky. The complaint was filed alleging commission of offences under Sections 307/323/326/341/506/34 IPC. After considering the preliminary evidence, Additional Chief Crl. Misc. No. M-32203 of 2009 (O & M) 2 Judicial Magistrate, Karnal summoned the respondents for commission of offence under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC. The petitioner-accused accepted the order and did not challenge the same. Revision was filed only by respondent-complainant with a plea that the accused should be summoned even for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. Vide the judgment of revisional Court, the accused have been summoned even for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. It transpires that FIR was lodged bearing No. 41 dated 09.03.2003 under Sections 307/323/341/506/34 IPC, P.S. Kunjpura, which resulted in filing of cancellation report. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold viz. the investigating agency has investigated the offence thoroughly and filed a cancellation report, therefore, there was no occasion for the Magistrate to summon the petitioner. On the second count, it has been argued that the complaint is after inordinate delay of 8 months and, therefore, is liable to be quashed. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. As per averments in the complaint, after receiving injuries, the respondent-complainant regained consciousness after expiry of months. There are specific allegations against the petitioner of causing injuries to the complainant. Para no. 1 of the complaint details the motive and the cause of estrangement between the parties. Be that as it may, only because the investigation resulted in cancellation, it cannot be held that the complaint is frivolous or is liable to be quashed. In case cancellation report is filed by the investigating agency, the complainant has the remedy of filing a complaint. Crl. Misc. No. M-32203 of 2009 (O & M) 3 The order of summoning has been passed after consideration of preliminary evidence. The order of summoning was not challenged by the petitioner or his co-accused. Rather the complainant challenged the order of summoning because Section 307 IPC was not invoked. Vide order passed by the revisional Court dated 29.10.2009, the petitioner and his co-accused have been summoned to stand trial, even for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC, in view of the medico legal evidence that has come on record. The Court has taken into account the fact that the complainant had 6 injuries on his person. As per CW-7 Dr. Rahul Gupta, Senior Resident, Neuro Surgeon, PGI, Chandigarh, the complainant had lacerated wound on the left temporal region of scalp and left ear. There was fracture on left clavicle. C.T. Scan was done which established temporal contusion and traumatic sub arachnoid hemorrhage. The patient/complainant was managed conservatively and was discharged on 23.11.2002. The projected case of the complainant is that the complainant was discharged while he was unconscious. The complainant regained consciousness just a fortnight before lodging of FIR. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter affidavits to hold that the petitioner and his co-accused did not commit any offence. Disputed questions of facts are involved, which can only be adjudicated and determined by the Trial court after taking evidence from both sides. In view of the above, this petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 25.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Crl. Misc. No. M-32203 of 2009 (O & M) 4