CRM No.48311 of 2011 in/and -1- CRR No. 2060 of 2011 (O&M IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.48311 of 2011 in/and CRR No. 2060 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 06.12.2011 EASI Bir Singh and another ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:-Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Ram, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. CRM No.48311 of 2011: Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 160 days in filing the revision petition. It is the contention of the petitioners that before framing of the charge against the petitioners, they approached this Court by filing separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-16833 of 2011 titled as EASI Bir Singh Versus State of Haryana and Criminal Misc. No. M-36595 of 2010 titled as Rajbir Versus State of Haryana, in which notice of motion was issued by this Court. It is during the pendency of the said petitions that it so happened that the charges were framed against him. After consultation with the counsel for the petitioners, they came to know that for challenging/setting aside the charge sheet, the CRM No.48311 of 2011 in/and -2- CRR No. 2060 of 2011 (O&M petitioners have to file the revision petition which resulted in delay of 160 days. Notice of this application was given to the State but no reply has been filed. I have heard counsel for the parties and I am satisfied with the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay. The present application is thus allowed, delay of 160 days in filing the revision petition stands condoned. CRR No. 2060 of 2011: In this revision petition challenge is to the order dated 25.01.2011, whereby, the petitioners alongwith other co-accused have been charge-sheeted for commission of the offence under Section 306 and 120-B IPC. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR nor is there any evidence connecting the petitioners with the commission of the offence for which the charges have been framed against them. There is a statement given by the complainant on 05.06.2010, which was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein, she has merely mentioned that on 23.05.2010, when she was forcibly put in the police jeep by Kuldeep and Rohit and taken to the police station Chandni Bagh against her wishes and three other police officials were there, whose name she did not know but could recognise them. They asked her to do some favour for two people in the night which she refused. Thereafter, they demanded ` 1000-2000/-, which also she refused and thereafter, they left her and she came back home. In FIR, which is instituted on 31.05.2010, she has only named two persons namely Kuldeep and Rohit. Thereafter, another statement was recorded on 10.06.2010, CRM No.48311 of 2011 in/and -3- CRR No. 2060 of 2011 (O&M when, an identification parade was conducted in PGI, Rohtak, where, Savita-complainant was admitted in the hospital. Out of the eight police officials who were produced turn by turn before her, she recognised only one police official namely Radhey Shyam but none of the petitioners were identified by her. He accordingly, states that the charge against the petitioners have been framed without there being any evidence against the petitioners nor there is anything to connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order qua the petitioners. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that petitioners are three police officials who had forcibly put the complainant in the police jeep and taken her to the police station Chandni Bagh against her wishes and asked her to do some favour for two people in the night and also demanded ` 1000-2000/- from her which she refused. It was because of this that the complainant took the extreme step of committing suicide on 31.05.2010 and, therefore, the petitioners were involved in the offence and have rightly been charged by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the petition. However, he could not dispute the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that during the identification parade conducted on 10.06.2010 at PGI, Rohtak, where the complainant-Savita was admitted in hospital, not one of the petitioners was identified by her. Constable Radhey Shyam, who was identified by the complainant was found to be innocent and, therefore, no challan has been presented against him. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Perusal of the FIR dated 31.05.2010, does not indicate the CRM No.48311 of 2011 in/and -4- CRR No. 2060 of 2011 (O&M involvement of the petitioners in any manner as they are not named in the FIR. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 05.06.2010 of the complainant again only speaks about the forcibly taking of the complainant in a police jeep, where again, the allegations are against Rohit and Kuldeep. At that time, there were three police officials alongwith Rohit and Kuldeep, whose name she did not know but could recognise them. They asked her to do some favour but she refused and then demanded of ` 1000-2000/- from her, she again refused and thereafter, she was left and she came back home. In this statement also, there is no mention that she was taken to the police station Chandni Bagh. Thereafter, an identification parade was conducted on 10.06.2010 at PGI, Rohtak, where, the complainant-Savita was admitted in hospital. There again, none of the petitioners was identified by her and she identified one Radhey Shyam a Head Constable, who was ultimately found to be innocent and no challan was presented against him. Statement of the complainant dated 10.06.2010, which was given in the presence of her parents, clearly shows that none of the petitioners was identified by her. There is no statement or evidence connecting the petitioners with the commission of the offence for which they have been charge-sheeted. If there is no evidence showing their involvement in commission of the offence, charge framed against them can not sustain. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, impugned order dated 25.01.2011 framing charge against the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat is hereby set aside qua the petitioners only. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 06.12.2011 JUDGE harjeet