Crl.Rev.No. 1095 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1095 of 2004 Date of decision: 2.3.2009 Nafe Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Dr.Surya Parkash, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. **** SABINA, J. Balwant Singh, Mahavir, Sharvan, Pasa, Zile Singh, Raj Kumar, Kapoora and Bimla-respondent Nos.2 to 7 were tried for an offence under Sections 148, 307/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 27 of the Arms Act in FIR No.92 dated 2.5.1999 registered at Police Station Sadar, Narwana. However, vide judgment dated 12.4.2004, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind had acquitted them (respondent Nos. 2 to 9) of the charge framed against them and issued process against the Crl.Rev.No. 1095 of 2004 2 complainants/petitioners under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for short) and prima facie held them guilty of the commission of offence punishable under Section 195 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, Nafe Singh and Suresh Kumar-petitioner/complainants have filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Complainant Nafe Singh informed the police that the members of his group hail from the Beniwal sub-caste (Gotra) and that they have dispute with the non-Beniwals over a piece of land for the last one year and a half. He is leisurely smoking 'Hukka' in front of the house of Suresh in the company of injured Suresh and Kuldeep somewhere around 8.30 p.m. on the previous evening when he expressed the desire to return to his house for supper and he walked away. The complainant had barely covered a few paces when brick/bats were showered at him from inside the house of accused Balwant Singh. Accused Shravan son of Shri Mahiya exhorted his accomplices to teach the enemy appropriate lesson for raising dispute over the agricultural piece of land, where after, accused Balwant emerged out of his house armed with a pistol followed by accused Mahabir, who was also armed with a pistol, and Shravan who was wielding a Crl.Rev.No. 1095 of 2004 3 stick. They were followed by Zile Singh, Raj Kumar, Kapoora and Bimla. Accused Balwant then fired a shot, which hit complainant Nafe Singh on the calf muscle of his left leg where after accused Sharvan gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder and Bimla hit a brick on his left elbow. The cries for help rendered by the injured attracted Suresh, Jagbir and Karma to the spot. Accused Passa, Zile Singh, Raj Kumar, Kapoora and Bimla started showering brick-bats at Kuldeep and Suresh. Accused Mahavir fired a shot from his country made pistol at Suresh where after the accused escaped from the spot their respective weapons.” Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has submitted that he is not pressing the challenge to the impugned judgment with regard to acquittal of respondent Nos.2 to 9 as it was a case of cross-version and in the cross-case, complainant party had been acquitted. He has further submitted that the part of the judgment, whereby an enquiry was ordered to be made under Section 195 IPC against the petitioners, is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the private respondents has not seriously contested the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. Present case was a case of cross-version. Both the Crl.Rev.No. 1095 of 2004 4 cases were investigated and challans were presented by the police. Thereafter, in both the cases accused were acquitted by the trial Court. In these circumstance, it would not be just and expedient to proceed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 195 IPC by following the procedure laid down under Section 340 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, the part of the judgment, whereby the learned trial Court has directed that the enquiry regarding offence punishable under Section 195 IPC after following procedure laid down under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be held as they were found prima facie guilty of the said offence, is set aside. So far as the part of judgment, whereby the accused/private respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them is concerned, the same is maintained. With the above modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE March 02, 2009 anita