Criminal Misc. No. M-7282 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-7282 of 2011. Date of Decision : 2.9.2011. Manju Rani alias Anju & another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. J.P Dhull., Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashing of (i) First Information Report No. 136 dated August 15th, 2006 under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal and (ii) order dated October 11th, 2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal whereby petitioners were summoned as additional accused to face trial on the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code. 2. On the statement of Sheela-respondent No.2, FIR was registered against Joginder alias Nathua alias Jaiwinder. During investigation of the case, statement of Sheela was also recorded. She stated that on the fateful day, Joginder alias Ballu along with Manju Rani alias Anju and Premo (petitioners) caused injuries to her and her husband Shiv Narain. Joginder alias Ballu was armed with knife, Premo was having a lathi and Manju was holding binda (handle) of kassi in her hand. Joginder alias Balu tried to give knife blow to her husband but it hit on her right hand. Premo gave her a lathi blow which hit on her back. Manju gave a binda blow on her left shoulder. On their making noise, her nephew Dalbir Singh rescued them. Accused fled away from the spot. After investigation, charge- Criminal Misc. No. M-7282 of 2011 2 sheet was filed against Joginder alias Ballu only. During trial, statement of Sheela (PW-1) was recorded. She again raised accusing finger against the petitioners. Learned trial Magistrate in his order has taken this piece of evidence into consideration and summoned the petitioners to face trial along with their co-accused. 3. It is gratifying to note that learned trial Magistrate was very much alive to the preposition of law and did not act in a mechanical or perfunctory manner. There was proper application of mind and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was rightly allowed. 4. As regards quashing of FIR, no meaningful argument except that accused were falsely implicated, could be put forth. 5. There is no scope for interference so, the petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 2.9.2011. SN