CRR No.1521 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1521 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.12.2011 Baldev Singh & others …Petitioners Versus Kaka Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate for the respondent. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) The complainant/respondent has filed a complaint No. 11 of 17/2/2003 for offence punishable under Sections 376/325/34 IPC against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.11.2008 has dismissed the complaint having observed that no material is available on the record prima facie justifying summoning of the accused/petitioners to face trial. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide order dated 1.4.2010 allowed the revision petition having observed that for the same incident, an FIR was registered with the police, therefore, Magistrate should have followed the procedure provided under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and should have called the report of the police on the FIR before taking final decision on the complaint. CRR No.1521 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that for the same incident, no FIR was ever lodged nor any investigation is pending on such an FIR. On being asked, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has stated that the complainant was beaten up by the police and was taken to the hospital for medical examination and in the medical report of the complainant FIR No.4 dated 26.11.2002 is mentioned. He, however, admits that he does not know the contents of the said FIR. On being asked specifically as to whether the complainant has ever got registered an FIR for the offences in question for which the complaint was filed, learned counsel for the complainant stated that though the complainant has approached the police but no FIR was lodged . Since no FIR was ever got registered for the offences mentioned in the private complaint, therefore order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the revision petition afresh in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 17.1.2012 at 10.00 A.M. ( Alok Singh ) December 14, 2011 Judge mks