IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1023 of 2010 Date of decision : 2.8.2010 Tek Ram and Others …. Petitioners Versus Phoolpati ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC. The complainant/respondent Phoolpati lodged FIR No.46 dated 24.4.2005 at Police Station Julana alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 320, 324, 452 and 506 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). It is alleged by the complainant Phoolpati that on 24.4.2005 at about 8.00 p.m. Tek Ram, Surender, Samunder (petitioners No.1 to 3) had parked their cart (rehra) in front of her house so as to unload the fodder from it. The complainant in Crl. Revision No.1023 of 2010 [2] the meanwhile asked them to park it at some distance away from their main door, so that the entrance to her house is not blocked. On this Surender (petitioner No.2) replied that he would unload the cart (rehra) at the place where it was parked and would not give any way to the complainant. The complainant, however, again requested petitioners No.1 to 3. Surender Singh (petitioner No.2) caught hold of the neck of the complainant and gave a fist blow and the complainant fell. She raised an alarm for saving her. On hearing her alarm, her sons namely Satbir and Raj Kumar came from inside. On hearing the noise, Satbir, Mahabir @ Ram Kumar and Naresh @ Mahesh (petitioners No.4 to 6) came from the other side. The said persons were carrying lathi, jelley and gandasi in their hands. Surender Singh (petitioner No.2) gave a gandasi blow on the head of the complainant. The complainant then went inside her house and the accused entered the house of the complainant and caused injuries to her. During the incident while Satbir the son of the complainant was saving the complainant, Satbir (petitioner No.4) gave a jelley blow on the left eye on the son of the complainant whose name is also Satbir. Mahabir (petitioner No.5) gave a lathi blow on the back of Satbir (son of the complainant). Tek Ram (petitioner No.1) gave a lathi blow on the legs of Satbir (son of the complainant) and they all gave blows to both the sons of the complainant. After causing injuries to the complainant and her sons, they ran away from the spot by taking their respective weapons with them. During investigation of the case, Phoolpati, complainant/respondent is stated to have deposed an affidavit dated Crl. Revision No.1023 of 2010 [3] 11.5.2005 in which it is stated that the complainant and her sons Satbir and Raj Kumar had received injuries while unloading the cart (rehra) of fodder and there were heated exchange of words but the village people had separated them and in the process of separating them, respondent/complainant Phoolpati had hit herself against the cart (rehra). It is submitted that on the basis of the said affidavit, the police filed a final report under Section 173 CrPC in which the petitioners were found innocent. Thereafter, a cancellation report was also filed before the Ilaqa Magistrate. It is when the cancellation report was filed that the complainant filed a protest petition alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 324, 452 and 506 IPC. The learned Ilaqa Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant party has summoned the petitioners. The petitioners aggrieved against the summoning order filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioners then filed Crl. Misc. No. M-21890 of 2008 in this Court which was dismissed on 20.7.2009. Thereafter, charges have been framed against the petitioners vide impugned order dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P1). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complaint would not be maintainable as the cancellation report has been filed by the police. It is also submitted that the complainant had deposed an affidavit dated 11.5.2005. Therefore, in view of the above affidavit, the charges have been wrongly framed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the contentions as raised. Learned counsel for the Crl. Revision No.1023 of 2010 [4] petitioners has not been able to show as to how a complaint would not be maintainable if a cancellation report has been filed by the police. As regards the affidavit dated 11.5.2005, the learned Magistrate has considered the same at the time of framing charges. It was observed that it was the admitted case of the police that the cancellation report was submitted only due to the fact that the matter was compromised through affidavit. In this respect, the complainant had given an explanation that as some of the accused persons are in police service so these affidavits were obtained forcibly. This aspect is, therefore, to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court after evidence has been led. The learned Magistrate has considered this aspect at the time of framing charges and the case is now fixed for evidence after charges had been framed. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for interference with the impugned orders is made out. Accordingly, the Crl. Revision petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 2, 2010 amit