IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 25437 of 2010 ( O&M) Date of decision: 7.10.2010 Jiwan Dass ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ORDER Crl.Misc.No.48122 of 2010 The present application is for placing on record Annexures P-5 and P-6. Crl.Misc.is allowed and Annexures P-5 and P-6 with the application are placed on record. Crl.Misc. No. M- 25437 of 2010 The present petition has been filed by petitioner Jiwan Dass for quashing of order dated 28.5.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which he disagreed with the report submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. declaring the petitioner innocent in case FIR No.76 dated 8.5.2008 under Sections 307/326/324/323/341/506/452/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Noormahal, District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an inquiry Crl.Misc. No. M- 25437 of 2010 [2] was conducted by DSP (D) and the petitioner was found innocent. It has been mentioned in the report submitted by DSP (D) that petitioner was not involved in the incident and due to party faction in the village, he had been implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no reasoning whatsoever has been given by the trial Court while dis-agreeing with the report submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The reasoning given in the report submitted by the DSP has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that report under Section 173(8) was to be decided at final stage of the trial and not at this stage. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order. In the impugned order it has been mentioned that there are specific allegations against the present petitioner. The allegations are also there in the statement of the complainant on the basis of which the said FIR was registered. After perusal of the statement of the complainant and other allegations, prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner to face trial. As far as the report given by DSP (D) is concerned, nothing has been mentioned as to how the accused has been found innocent. Moreover, in the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at the conclusion that on the basis of inquiry conducted by DSP as well as other evidence on record, prima facie allegations are there against present petitioner Jiwan Dass and report under Section 1738) Cr.P.C. has not been accepted. As per provisions of Section Crl.Misc. No. M- 25437 of 2010 [3] 173(8) Cr.P.C., it is for the trial Court to see on the basis of record available before it that prima facie a case is made out against the accused or not. It is always not necessary for the Court to agree with the report submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on the basis of evidence available at that stage. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as there is no illegality in the impugned order and the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE October 07, 2010. raghav