Criminal Misc. No.M-10601 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-10601 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.7.2011 Samina ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 7. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure P-2), was dismissed. The petitioner had filed the complaint against the Criminal Misc. No.M-10601 of 2009 (O&M) 2 respondents on the allegations that her uncle Yasin was owner of some agricultural land situated in village Garhi Bharal. He had executed a general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 29.6.2004. However, a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner by her uncle and Randhir Singh for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC. On 19.2.2006, the petitioner was present in her house. Randhir Singh called the petitioner to his house through Balwan Singh and Ram Mehar. When the petitioner reached the house of Randhir Singh, his wife told her that she should go to the room on the first floor and her father was asked to call some respectables. When the petitioner went to the room on the first floor, Jaina @ Jai Narain and Raghbir Singh were present there. Wife of Randhir Singh bolted the door from outside. Randhir Singh caught hold of the petitioner and undressed her. Jaina @ Jai Narain gagged the mouth of the petitioner. Rajesh caught hold of the hands of the petitioner and Ram Mehar caught hold of her legs. Randhir Singh then committed rape on the person of the petitioner. Jaina @ Jai Narain and Rajesh also sexually assaulted the petitioner and she suffered injuries during this process. At about 10.10 a.m when the father of the petitioner returned back, the door of the room was still bolted. The petitioner cried for help. The door of the room was opened and all the accsued fled from the spot. The petitioner was got medico legally examined and FIR No.76 dated 20.2.2006 was registered on the basis of the statement of the petitioner. However, no action was taken in the said case and the petitioner filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 376 (g), 506/ and 120-B IPC. Criminal Misc. No.M-10601 of 2009 (O&M) 3 The complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Panipat vide order dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure P-2), after recording of preliminary evidence led by the petitioner. Revision petition filed by the complainant against the said order was allowed and the Judicial Magistrate was directed to proceed with the complaint as per the observations made in the order dated 14.5.2007. Thereafter, accused were ordered to be summoned to face the trial for an offence under Section 376 (g), 506, 120-B IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for further proceedings. After framing of the charge by the trial Court, the case was adjourned for evidence of the prosecution. Birmati preferred a petition in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint and the orders passed in pursuance thereto. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 14.5.2007 was quashed vide order dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure P-4) by this Court as the order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to Birmati @ Biro. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure P-5), the revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the present petition. Heard. One of the reasons that weighed with the Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition, was that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal was not available on record and hence, it could not be concluded that rape had been committed on the complainant. During the pendency of this petition, the report of the Forensic Criminal Misc. No.M-10601 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Science Laboratory has been received. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law, after considering the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure P-5) is set aside and the Additional Sessions Judge is directed to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Office is directed to send the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. (SABINA) JUDGE July 29, 2011 anita