Crl. Revn. No. 1640 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 1640 of 2006 Date of Decision : January 16, 2008. Shankar Singhal .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.P.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yash Paul Malik, AAG, Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate for respondent no.2. * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Shnakar Singhal has filed the instant petition assailing 24.05.2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner. According to the prosecution version, on 05.11.2001 at about 01:00 P.M., complainant Anil Kaushal and Kanwar Singh went to the factory of the petitioner, situated at 58 kilometers stone, Post Office Ismailla, Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak to recover their money from the petitioner . The petitioner, however, abused them and turned them out of his factory. When Anil Kaushal and Kanwar Singh sat in their car and Crl. Revn. No. 1640 of 2006 2 started it, the petitioner came and pulled out a revolver from his shirt and fired two shots. However, the complainant Anil Kaushal ducked and the shots hit front window and rear window of the car. On raising alarm by the complainant, Davinder Singh witness was also attracted. The petitioner, along with revolver, went inside the factory. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that Deputy Superintendent of Police (H), Panipat conducted inquiry into the matter vide report dated 07.12.2001 (Annexure P-12) with supplementary report dated 21.02.2002 (Annexure P-13) and found the petitioner innocent. A counter version was given by the petitioner's employees that a Santro car came and somebody from that car fired at the car of the complainant while nobody was sitting in the complainant's car. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to supplementary report under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure P-11), according to which Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, on re-investigation (further investigation ?), found the petitioner innocent. On the basis of these reports, discharge of the petitioner is claimed by setting aside the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge. I have carefully considered the matter. Anil Kaushal, Kanwar Singh and Davinder Singh have stood by their statements, even during inquiry by Deputy Superintendent of Police (H), Panipat and re- investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak that the petitioner had fired shots at the complainant party. There is counter version of the petitioner through his employees that shots were fired by some other person from another car while no one was sitting in the complainant's car. This is question of evaluating evidence by the trial court after the evidence is led by both the sides during trial. At this stage of framing of charge, it cannot be said that no case for framing of charge is made out. It is a case of version and cross-version by both sides. The complainant's version cannot be thrown out at the threshold merely on the basis of counter version of the petitioner. Crl. Revn. No. 1640 of 2006 3 There is another aspect of the matter. On the basis of petitioner's version, another FIR was registered against complainant Anil Kaushal , witness Kanwar Singh and ASI/SHO Vijay Singh for implicating the petitioner in a false case. However, in that case, the police, after investigation, has submitted cancellation report, against which the petitioner proposes to file protest petition. Thus, it again comes out that it is a matter of version of complainant versus version of the petitioner. This can be adjudicated only after evidence is recorded during the trial. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed. It is, however, expressly made clear that nothing observed herein above shall have any bearing on the merits of the case. January 16, 2008 ( L.N.MITTAL ) monika JUDGE