Crl. Misc. No. M-35037 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35037 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.04.2011 Amarjit Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 4-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for fair and proper investigation of FIR No.55 dated 15.08.2010(Annexure P-1) under Sections 324/34 of IPC and later on added Section 326 IPC, registered at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga and to hand over the investigation to Crime Branch or independent agency or some senior officer Brief facts of the case are that accused Nos. 5 and 6 are the real brothers of the petitioner and accused No. 7 is the nephew (Bhanja) of the petitioner. There is enmity between the brothers as there is joint khata of land and some their land abuts GT Road, District Moga. As per the oral settlement, the maximum area of land abutting the GT road falls to the share of the petitioner but with ulterior motives, accused Nos. 5 and 6 want to take share of the petitioner and were pressurizing him to enter into a deal with them but the petitioner refused to do so. So, in order to achieve their oblique ulterior motive, accused, in connivance with each other have inflicted the injuries to the petitioner. On 29.07.2010, the accused- Crl. Misc. No. M-35037 of 2010 (O&M) -2- respondent No.s 5 to 7 gave the sharp weapon blows on the body of the petitioner and the petitioner suffered injuries on his left hand which were inflicted by using Kirpan, Toki and Sota. In the above background, initially the F.I.R was registered against the accused-respondent Nos. 5 to 7 under Sections 324 and 326 IPC and injury under Section 326 IPC was added on 17.08.2010 after the X-Ray report. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that police is not taking any action in the above said F.I.R and petitioner is being pressurised by the accused to compromise with them. On notice, a reply has been filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nihal Singh Wala. Learned State counsel has referred to the reply and stated that after the inquiry was conducted, it was found that no such occurrence had ever taken place. As per the investigation report (Annexure R-1) , written opinion of the doctor was taken in which he has written “possibility cannot be rules out” that the injuries were self inflicted. After conducting the enquiry, a cancellation report has been prepared and sent to SSP Moga. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to take his plea before the trial Court on presentation of the cancellation report. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 25, 2011 G.Arora