Crl. Misc. No. M-19688 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19688 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.04.2013 Ram Achal ...Petitioner Versus Chander Prakash and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 8. Nemo for remaining respondents. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Tersely, the facts, material and evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially the petitioner-complainant Ram Achal son of Japsi (for brevity 'the complainant'), has filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P-1), against his son Chander Prakash, his wife Vidyawati and others, in which, they were summoned to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 342, 352, 452, 148, 149 read with Section 120-B IPC, by the Judicial Magistrate, vide summoning order dated 08.12.2003 (Annexure P-2). Crl. Misc. No. M-19688 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 2. Sequelly, after taking into consideration the pre-charge evidence, the trial Magistrate discharged all the respondents-accused, by way of impugned order dated 22.04.2008 (Annexure P-4). 3. Aggrieved thereby, the first revision petition filed by the complainant was dismissed as well, by the Revisional Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 25.03.2010 (Annexure P-5). 4. The complainant-petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant second revision petition (which is otherwise legally barred) in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and judgment (Annexure P-5). 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was sufficient pre-charge evidence on record but the Courts below committed a legal mistake to discharge the respondents-accused, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that, taking into consideration the the insufficiency, inherent contradictions and improbability in the pre- charge evidence on record of the complainant, the trial Judge has rightly discharged the respondents-accused, vide order dated (Annexure P-4). 8. Not only that, the matter was again re-examined and all the contentions pertaining to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the complainant have already been considered and Crl. Misc. No. M-19688 of 2010 (O&M) -3- negatived by the Revisional Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 25.03.2010 (Annexure P-5), which in substance is as under: - "As has been conceded by the learned counsel for the revisionist, Ram Anchal himself is not an eye witness to the occurrence whereby it was alleged that the accused confined his wife Nicky in a room after tress passing into her house and abducted his daughter Seema. Almost all the story contained in his complaint, thus is based upon hear-say. Although Ram Anchal came to depose as his own witness to affirm whatever was experienced personally by him, but his statement is of no avail to help his cause, because his statement had remained incomplete. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that due to some unavoidable circumstances complainant could not appear for the purpose of completion of his statement and thus his statement has remained incomplete. As per basic law an incomplete statement made by a prosecution witness cannot be utilized against the accused to either frame a charge or to hold them guilty. 9. The most important witness of the trial were Nicky second wife of Ram Anchal and his daughter Seema who was allegedly kidnapped by the accused. As already observed Chander Parkash and his wife Vidyawati are none else, but real son and real daughter-in-law of the complainant. Seema who was allegedly kidnapped by Chander Parkash was his real sister being a daughter of complainant Ram Anchal from his previous wife Saroj. It is highly improbable and obscence to allege that a real brother may induct his real sister into any unlawful activity. It has been rightly argued by the revisionist that as Seema was not under his power and care, hence he could not produce her before the Magistrate during trial. In the absence of testimony of most relevant witness of the complainant, the entire stress shifts upon the shoulder of his wife Nicky through whom he was tried to get a charge framed U/s 323/506/342/452/148/149 read with Section 120-B IPC. A close perusal of the statement of Nicky brings out that she is not aware about the date, month and year of the alleged incident, when she was allegedly confined in a room of her house to facilitate kidnapping of Seema. When asked, she even failed to name of the accused who allegedly tress passed into her house. In the complaint Ram Anchal has pleaded that the accused had entered his house by scaling the boundary wall, but no such affirmation was made by CW Nicky, when she came to depose as her own witness. After pleadings that Nicky was confined in a room of her house by the accused, this fact could not be proved and rather CW Nicky made a contradictory statement by submitting that she was not confined in her house by the accused and rather it was the police who confined her in her house. If statement of CW Nicky is read between the lines, it would make out that no such incident dated 10.11.2002 had ever occurred. The entire story was made up by complainant Ram Achal with a view to teach that accused including his son Chander Parkash and daughter-in-law Vidyawati a hard lesson. When a false story is woven by disregarding the reality, it is bound to fall. 10. I have gone through the order under revision. It does not suffer from any non appreciation of facts on record and consequently finding no merit, the revision petition is dismissed.” 9. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have appreciated the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Learned counsel did not point out any material/reasons, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order/judgment of Courts below. Such impugned order/judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot Crl. Misc. No. M-19688 of 2010 (O&M) -4- possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the instant 2nd revision petition (which is otherwise barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.) in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, so, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and judgment (Annexure P-5) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. April 30, 2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) naresh.k Judge