Crl. Misc. No. M-21171 of 2011 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-21171 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: August 10, 2011 Jaswinder Singh and another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and another ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed with a prayer that complaint entitled Mrs. Kshama Rani vs. Jaswinder Singh and others alongwith summoning order dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, be quashed, whereby petitioner no. 1 has been summoned to stand trial under Sections 279/337/338 IPC and petitioner no. 2 has been summoned to stand trial for commission of offence under Section 506 IPC. 2. While giving the background of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that on 18.03.2005, while respondent no. 2 was coming home, allegedly, was hit by a motor bike. Other than minor injuries, she received one fracture of a foot bone. On 19.03.2005, FIR Annexure P-1 was lodged naming petitioner no. 1 on the basis of suspicion. 3. Learned counsel contends that investigation was carried which indicated that the motor cycle owned by the petitioners was not involved in the incident. Even respondent no. 2 was satisfied that the petitioners were not involved and, therefore, vide Annexure P-2 dated 11.08.2005, Crl. Misc. No. M-21171 of 2011 (O & M) 2 complainant suffered a supplementary statement to the effect that it was not the petitioner no. 1 who caused the accident, it was another person Rajneesh. 4.. Rajneesh was tried by a Court having competent jurisdiction. Interestingly, respondent no. 2 did not appear as a witness. Resultantly, Rajneesh has been acquitted vide judgment Annexure P-4 dated 16.01.2010. 5. Learned counsel has pointed out that even a case under the Motor Vehicles Act was filed. Petitioner no. 1 as also Rajneesh were impleaded. Petitioner no. 1 paid compensation to the complainant. 6. Learned counsel contends that filing of complaint and continuance of proceedings is an abuse of process of Court on three grounds. 7. Firstly, respondent no. 2 had the occasion to go before the Trial Court in the FIR case to make a statement that the petitioner was the culprit. Secondly, the petitioner made a supplementary statement on 11.08.2005 Annexure P-2, vide which she named Rajneesh and thirdly the complaint has been kept pending till now when summoning order has been issued on 02.06.2010 vide order Annexure P-7. 8. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 9. The first version that has come by way of lodging of FIR is of 19.03.2005 and is to the effect that petitioner no. 1 caused accident. Under what circumstances the supplementary statement was given by the complainant on 11.08.2005 would be a matter of evidence. Surely, the petitioners can take the defence before the Trial Court. The contention of the learned counsel that the complainant could have gone to the Trial Court so as to implicate the petitioners is also not available to the petitioners in so Crl. Misc. No. M-21171 of 2011 (O & M) 3 much as respondent no. 2 had filed this complaint on 30.05.2005 i.e. soon after lodging of the FIR and much before finalization of investigation process. 10. So far as the late issuance of summoning order is concerned, per se, it cannot be pleaded as a ground for quashing in so much as the petitioners were not before the Court as accused and no prejudice on account of delay can be said to have been caused to the petitioners. 11. This Court has taken note of the fact that petitioner no. 1 has paid compensation in the MACT case. 12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, jurisdiction cannot be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to record a finding that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, for which they have been summoned. 13. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. Nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on merits as the averments in the petition and the contention of the learned counsel have been considered only in context of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?