Crl.Misc. No. M-5458 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M-5458 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 24, 2010 Devender ...........Petitioner Versus Vikram alias Jhallu ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neha Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short`Cr.P.C.') for quashing of impugned order dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul confirming the order dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P2) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. Brief facts of the case, as noted in para 2 of the complaint, read as under:- “That on 26.11.2007 at about 11.30 A.M., the complainant was sitting on a wooden platform in front of the shop where the flour mill (chakki) is situated. At that time accused No. 1 and 2 were also sitting there. The complainant as well as accused No. 1 and 2 were talking about the boring done at Johar as well as at Adda. They were talking that the boring at Johar was got done by Rai Inderjeet Singh Minister. The accused No.1 and 2 were saying Crl.Misc. No. M-5458 of 2010 2 that the boring done at Johar as well as Adda was got done by Radhey Shyam MLA. On this accused No.1 abused the complainant and further gave fist blows on his right ear. The accused No.2 gave fist blows on the forehead of the complainant. On hearing the noise, accused No.3 also came there. Accused No.3 gave kulhari blow on the upper side of the fingers of right hand of the complainant. The complainant raised raula `Bachao Bachao' and at the spot Des Raj son of Nihal Singh and Narender son of Babu Lal resident of same village saved the complainant from them otherwise the accused would have put the complainant to death.” The accused have been summoned to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC by the trial Court vide order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul and the Additional Sessions Judge Narnaul vide judgment dated 30.11.2009 confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and others under Sections 323, 324, 325/34 IPC. Respondent led his preliminary evidence in support of his case. On the basis of the same, petitioner and his co-accused were ordered to be summoned for commission of an offence under Sections 323,324,325/34 IPC. Revision filed by the petitioner against the summoning order dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P2) was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Annexure P3). Crl.Misc. No. M-5458 of 2010 3 The learned Sessions Judge in para 5 of the impugned order has observed as under:- “The perusal of lower court file shows that the complainant Vikram himself stepped into witness box as PW1 and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. PW2 Deshraj, who is an eye witness has also corroborated the complainant's version and stated that he saw the incident and he saved the complainant from the clutches of accused. Ex.P2 is the medico-legal report and Ex.P3 is the x-ray report according to which `fracture' of right finger of complainant Vikram was detected. Since the accused persons had caused grievous injuries to the complainant in furtherance of their common intention, therefore, section 34 IPC is very much applicable in this case. It is well settled law that at the time of issuing of process against the accused, a prima facie is to be seen. At that stage, it is not to be seen whether the accused is to be convicted or to be acquitted.” In Manoj vs. Prem Lal, 2006(3) RCR(Criminal) 941, it has been held as under:- "Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and such power was not to be utilised as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code, when there is serious Crl.Misc. No. M-5458 of 2010 4 miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court or when mandatory provision of law are not complied with and when the High court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court." Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 210(2) Cr.P.C to submit that the complaint case and FIR were liable to be clubbed. Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “210 (2)If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report” Section 210(2) Cr.P.C is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case FIR No. 251 dated 27.11.2007 has been lodged against the complainant- Vikram and others,whereas, the complaint in question has been lodged by respondent No.2-Vikram. In the present case, counsel has failed to point out any miscarriage of justice which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge February 24, 2010 arya Crl.Misc. No. M-5458 of 2010 5