Crl. Revision No. 1310 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1310 of 2009 Date of decision : 20.05.2009 Budh Ram ....Petitioner V/s Sukhdev Singh and Others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition challenging order dated 22.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby prayer of the petitioner for trial of complaint case as well as state case together was rejected. Brief factual background of the case is that on 05.10.2006 at about 7.00/7.30 p.m. Sukhdev Singh, Pritpal Singh @ Pali and Sandeep Singh tresspassed into the house of the complainant (Budh Ram)and caused various injuries to him. A gandasi blow was inflicted on the person of the complainant by Sukhdev Singh. Another gandasi blow was given by Sandeep Singh and Pali gave a lathi blow to the complainant. On the next day i.e. 06.10.2006, the complainant got treatment from C.H. hospital, Dabwali. According to the complainant, the doctor found that he had suffered certain fractures. The police, however, failed to take any action due to which a complaint had to be preferred before the Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali. Prior to the complaint aforesaid, an FIR No. 226 dated 05.10.2006 was registered by the police under Sections 307/341/326/34 IPC on the complaint of Paramjit Kaur wife of Pritpal Singh. According to the Crl. Revision No. 1310 of 2009 2 FIR, son of the petitioner alongwith one Ravi had accosted Paramjeet Kaur and Balbir Singh on 05.10.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. and had inflicted blows on Balbir Singh with a sharp edge weapon (kapa). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present is a case of cross-version and therefore, the private complaint as well as the FIR should be tried together. However, this prayer was declined by the court below on the ground that in the complaint case three persons namely Sukhdev Singh, Pritpal Singh and Sandeep Singh have been summoned as accused who were neither accused nor witnesses in the alleged cross case. Moreover, the circumstances, time and place of occurrence and also the motive in both state case and the private complaint being different, both could not be tried together. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal infirmity or defect in the impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. The FIR was lodged on 05.10.2006, while the complaint was instituted on 28.02.2007 at the instance of the petitioner (Budh Ram). The said Budh Ram is not an accused in FIR No. 226 dated 05.10.2006. In the said FIR, son of the petitioner is an accused. The present complaint which has been lodged by the petitioner after a delay of 4 months of the alleged occurrence cannot be said to be inter-linked with the FIR No. 226 dated 05.10.2006 in order to claim that the same be tried along with FIR. I do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the court below. There is not merit in the revision petition. The same is thus dismissed. 20.05.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE