IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.10761-M of 2011 Date of Decision:8.4.2011 Nirmal Singh and others .... Petitioner Versus Jujhar Singh .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint No.21 dated 6.7.2009 filed under Sections 435,447,323,506,148,149 IPC titled as Jujhar Singh Versus Nirmal Singh and others (Annexure P-3) which is now pending in the Court of Sh. Sangeet Pal Singh, JMIC, Faridkot. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his prayer only to the extent that Complaint No.21 dated 6.7.2009 filed under Sections 435,447,323,506,148,149 IPC titled as Jujhar Singh Versus Nirmal Singh and others (Annexure P-3) which is now pending in the Court of Sh. Sangeet Pal Singh, JMIC, Faridkot may be ordered to be heard alongwith FIR No.47 dated 20.4.2009 registered under Sections 326/324/435/440/149/149 IPC pending trial in the Court of JMIC, Faridkot. The respondent Jujhar Singh got recorded his cross version to the said FIR thereby leveling specific allegations against Nirmal Singh, Darbara Singh, Naib Singh, Sardool Singh, Jagroop Singh, Bhola Singh son of Lachhman Singh that they had started cutting the wheat crop with the combine and Nirmal Singh had attacked him with his Gandasi which hit on his head and Jaswinder Singh alias Raj Singh had attacked him with his Kappa which hit on his little finger of the right hand and also that the above said accused had set on fire their wheat crop. Later on, the respodnent Jujhar Crl. M. No.10761-M of 2011 -2- Singh also filed one complaint on dated 6.7.2009 against the petitioner and the other family members under Sections 435/447/323/506/148/149 IPC on the same facts and circumstances. Thus, the prayer is just and fair. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that both the cases i.e. the above mentioned FIR and the cross version as well as the aforementioned complaint be heard and tried by the same Court. 8.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE