63 1 CilRevision No 1909of2008 1 IN T HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB c HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crll2evisionNo1909 of2008 Dateofdecision2009 Om Pasrkashandanother Petitioners versus PannaLal a m CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE JORA SINGH 0 C Present Mrlllhekhawat Advocate I for thepetitioners C5 MVishal TanejaAdvoCate I for the 4 JORA SINGH J0 1 CrlMiscllToA6242 of2009 j1 Heard Allowed 11 AnnexuresP4 and I5 are taken on record Crl Revision No1909 of2008 Om Parkash and Nitu filed this revision to impugnthe order dated e 2832008 exure P11renderedbySessionsJudgeNamaul vide which 1 1 order dated23007 passedbySDJM was set aside and the file was sent back with a direction that necessaryorder be passedbyleamed Magistrate in view ofthe observationsmadein theimpugned order Panna Lal filed complaint under Sections 32314521506134 IPC on the allegations that on 27 122003 at about l 30 PM he alongwith his wife Babita Devi was presentin the drawing room of his house In the meantimeOm Parkash armed with an iron rod and Nitu wife of Om Parkasharmedwith a pipewrench came Nitu gaveblow on theheadofthe Om Parkash gave blow with iron rod Om Parkash gave Rani Anita 2013.03.18 11: 36 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 CtRevision No 1909of2008 2 second blow to the which hit on his 1e8shoulder Nitu gave blow on the left side of the with pipewrench Wife of the tried to save the Then Nitu gave blow on the breastofBabita Om Parkash gave blow to Babita which hit on the Iower partof her stomach Raula was raisedand on hearingraula RaUan Lal and Subhashcame to the spotand savedthe and his wife from the 1 t clutches ofthe accused 0 C Vide order dated 232007 I19 passedby SDJM I complaint was dismissed on the allegation that primafacie C5 I no case is madeout to summon the accusedunder any Section ofIPC Z Feelingaggrievedagainstthe order dated 23 007 revlSlOn was instituted but the same was dismissedvide the impugned order dated 283008 64nnexure P I cll r Learned counsel for thepetitioners arguedthat the order of the SDJM ls a valid one Complaint was filed by concealing true facts with ulterior motive RattanLal was not examined Order ofthe 0 SDJM was wronglyset aside Leamed counsel for the petitioners cited ol 200861RCR Crl1 370 Kuldip Rai Mahaian VS Hlikam Chand and 6ii9 200811RCRfCrl l 377 ChamanLal Goval vs Kaur Singh In KuldeepRai Mahaians case supra9quashing of criminal under Section 482 CrC Disputedquestions of fact cannot be gone into in a petitionunder Section 482 of the Code HighCourt can however quashthe when it finds that was mala fide and abuse of process of lave High Court has inherent power and dutyto prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to securetheends ofjusticeIn the instant case the impugned Rani Anita 2013.03.18 11: 36 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 CrlRevision Nol909 of2008 3 complaintis result of mala Ode as the was nursinggrudge againstpetitionerComplaintquashed In Chaman Lal Goyalscase supra quashingofcomplaint on account of abuse of process of law and not comingto Court with clean handsCriminal complaint dismissedbyHighCoun on the groundofdefault 111 filingsecondcomplaint as also review petition m L againstdismissal of earlier In the second complaint the fact of 0 the Sling of review petitionwas not mentioned and also the date of 3 0 I of next appearancewas differently mentioned in the review C5 petition as well in the second Thus did not approach eY ee6 the Court with clean hands Complaint and quashed Learned counsel for the arguedthat no question of ulteriormotive The and his wife were facingtrial in FIR N036 dated 102004 and this fact is clear from para No of the complaintIf 1 IlRattan Lal was not examined then complaintis not to be dismissed e 5 Secondwitness was examined Numberof injuries were notedbythe doctor DDR No27 dated27122003 was recorded in view ofthe statement ofthe Order ofthe SDJM was rightlyset aside Leamed counselfor the cited 6i9200011 RCR Crl1 123 ShangaraSinghVS JoginderSingh and 0ii 2003l21RCR Crll 110 Dy Chief Controller of Imloortsand Exportsvs Roshanlal Agarwalandothers I havegonethrough the file Annexure P2 is the copy of complaintunder Sections 32314521506134 IPC In paraNo of thecomplaintclear cut allegation of the is that on 27122003 at about 13O PM the accusedfully armedcame to his house and had causedinjuriesto him 1 Rani Anita 2013.03.18 11: 36 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 CrRevision No 1909of2008 4 Panna Lal and his wife Occurrence was witnessed by Rattan Lal Subhash Motive to cause injurieswas mutual partitionof the house Panna Lal is the real brotherof Om Parkash Para No of the complaintfurther shows that policeof had recorded the statement of Panna Lal but no action was taken The policewas ln collusion with the opposite party Criminal case was registered againstthe 1 and his wife The file shows that Panna Lal and his wife were 0 C presentin their house Oppositeparty lly armed came and had caused I injuries to Panna Lal and his wife PannaLal appeared as his own witness C5 I His wife Babita also appeared to supportthe version ofPanna Lal Z The occurrence was witnessed by Rattan Lal and Subhash Rattan Lal was not examined but Subhash appeared as CW2 He has tr supported the versioii ofPanna Lal 4e Dr Karan Singhhad medico legallyexamined Panna Lal r 5 injuries were noted on the personofPanna Lal File further shows that DDR No27 P49 was b ema Om recordedat the instanceof Panna Lal The accused are to be summonedif the Court is of the opinionthat a primafacie case is made out to summon theaccused The Court is not to see that ifthe accused are summoned then no questionof conviction Leamed SDJM has wronglyopinedthat complaint was ftled with ulterior motive and the has not come to the Court with clean hands In ShangaraSinghscase supra9it has beenheld as underl Complaint case Preliminaryevidence recorded by MagistrateMagistrate to summon the accusedfor trial ifprima facie case was made oute cannot dismiss the Rani Anita 2013.03.18 11: 36 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 0 CrRevision No1909 of2008 5 complaintbymakingmicroscopic scrutinyof evidence at that stage 91 In Roshanlal Agarwals case supra9Honble Supreme Court held as followsl Determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there m 1S sufflcient groundfor proceeding and not whether there i 0 sufficient groundfor convictione whether the evidence 1S C adequate for supporting the conviction can be determinedonly C5 at the trial and not at the stageof inquiryoAt the stageof issuingthe process to the accused the Magistrate1S not Z required to record reasons As discussed earlier PannaLal and his wife appeared in Court I oll to supportthe story The doctor had noticed injurieson the person of One of the eye wltnesses had appeared to supportthe verSlOll aw ofPanna Lal DDR No27 dated27122003 was recorded at the instanceof Z Ll Panna Lal but no action was taken thereon Then Panna Lal had to file a privatecomplaint In view of11 discussedabove revision beingwithout merits1S dismissed 01 Cme 2009 pk JUDGE e Z X p44 1 1 ll Rani Anita 2013.03.18 11: 36 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document