Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2001. Date of decision:-19.5.2008. Shyam Singh ...Petitioner. Versus Gulzar Singh Sandhu and others ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.10.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby in a revision filed by respondents No.1 to 5, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class for framing charge against the respondents was set aside and they were discharged. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondents with the allegation that on April 3, 1994 at about 10.00 P.M. when the complainant was returning from his land/fields, the respondents armed with deadly weapons encircled the petitioner and gave injuries to him. Regarding the occurrence, no complaint was made to the police and it was only on April 7, 1994 when the complaint was filed in the court under Sections 324/323/379/148/149 IPC, in which after preliminary evidence vide order dated July 1, 2000 the charges were framed against the respondents under Sections 323/324 IPC read with Sections 148/149 IPC. Aggrieved against the order framing charge, the respondents preferred revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who vide impugned Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2001 -2- order dated October 19, 2000 set aside the order passed by learned Magistrate framing charge and discharged the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge exceeded its jurisdiction while accepting the prayer made by the respondents considering the challenge to the order framing charge. Appreciation of evidence at that stage was not within the domain of the court. Accordingly, the order needs to be set aside and the respondents should be directed to face trial for the charges framed against them. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised. The charges were framed merely on the statement of the petitioner and a doctor, who could merely state that the petitioner had suffered six injuries which were found to be simple in nature. There was no corroboration of the statement made by the petitioner even though in the complaint filed, he had stated that at the time of occurrence, he was accompanied by Balwinder and Manjinder Singh. The complainant is an interested witness. There was no chance given to the police to investigate the matter as the complaint was directly filed to the court without reporting the matter to the police. It is further not disputed that the petitioner is an accused in FIR registered against him and one Harbans Singh in connection with kidnapping of the respondents. The complaint in question was counter blast to that. Still further, the court cannot lose sight of the fact that the alleged incident took place in 1994, the respondents were discharged vide impugned order dated October 19, 2000 and we are in 2008 now. Considering the falsity in the case set up by the petitioner and Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2001 -3- the fact that sufficient material was not on record to chargesheet the respondents, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while accepting the revision filed by the respondents. The present petition is dismissed. May 19, 2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) asija JUDGE