IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3836 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.2.2010 Tarlok Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. R.P Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of FIR dated 16.7.2006 (Annexure P1) which has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 323 and 324/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) on the complaint of Baljit Singh son of Darshan Singh. Baljit Singh, complainant on 16.7.2006 made a statement to the effect that on 15.7.2006 at about 6.00 am in the morning, he along with his friend Jaswinder Kumar was coming from his fields towards his house. When he reached near the house of Harjap Singh, Sarpanch then Tarlok Singh (petitioner), Paramjit Kumar and Makhan Singh who happened to be sister’s husband of Tarlok Singh (petitioner) started abusing the complainant without any cause. Baljit Singh, complainant stopped them from doing this and then Tarlok Crl. Misc. No. M-3836 of 2010 [2] Singh (petitioner) who was armed with ‘kirch’ gave a ‘kirch’ blow on the left side of his head which hit him on the temporal region. Then Paramjit Kumar gave a ‘danda’ blow on the head of the complainant which hit on his right side of the temporal region. Thereafter, Makhan Singh gave a ‘danda’ blow on his left hand which hit on his left arm near the elbow. Then Jaswinder Kumar came forward to save the complainant and the petitioner Tarlok Singh gave a kirch blow on the middle of his head. Thereafter Paramjit Kumar gave a danda blow on his right hand which hit him on his index finger. Then hue and cry was raised which attracted Darshan Singh and Paramjit Kaur (father and mother of the complainant Baljit Singh). Then the assailants ran away from the spot. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that at the fag end of the trial of the case, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and he had gone abroad. Thereafter, he surrendered in the case and was granted bail. It is submitted that during trial of the co-accused namely Paramjit Kumar and Makhan Singh, the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and they were acquitted by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur (Nawanshahar) vide judgment and order dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure P2). A reference has been made to the statement of Baljit Singh (Annexure P3), statement of Paramjit Kaur (Annexure P4), statement of Darshan Singh (Annexure P5) and statement of Gurdev Singh (Annexure P6) to contend that all the said witnesses have turned hostile. Therefore, no useful purposes would be served in continuing with the proceedings and the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) is liable to be quashed. Crl. Misc. No. M-3836 of 2010 [3] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the same. This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry and determine on the basis of evidence recorded against the other accused as to whether offence is likely to be made out or not. This is the function and domain of the trial Court and this Court is not to perform the functions of the trial Court. In case the witnesses have resiled, it is for the petitioner to confront the said witnesses with their previous statements in accordance with law. This exercise is to be carried out by the trial Court itself. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is the main accused who was armed with a ‘kirch’ and gave a ‘kirch’ blow on the left side of the head of the complainant Baljit Singh which hit him on his temporal region. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, no ground for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) is made out. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 11, 2010 amit