IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. 870-M of 2005 DATE OF DECISION : 28.05.2008 Bhag Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Versus Sharanjit Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Veneet Soni, Advocate, for Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Shri K.S. Dhaliwal, appearing for the petitioners, while arguing the present petition for quashing of complaint and the summoning order, has made the following submissions : (i) He has contended that regarding the same incident, DDR Annexure P-5 was lodged at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, in which allegations that the Soti blows were given, which attracted offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, are lacking. Crl. Misc. No. 870-M of 2005 -2- (ii) Shri Dhaliwal has submitted that there is civil suit pending between the parties and the present complaint is mis-use and abuse of process of law as a counter-blast to settle the score with the petitioners. (iii) He has stated that the present complaint is at the instance of Shri Harinder Singh Chahal, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, who is a resident of Patiala and he is a very influential person and the petitioners apprehend that if they cause appearance in the Courts at Patiala, they are likely to be implicated. (iv) He has contended that the entire story is un-natural, improbable and unconvincing, as in the complaint material particulars have not been furnished. Shri A.S. Jattana, appearing for respondent No.1-complainant, has stated that a specific allegation has been levelled in the complaint and to the same effect, witnesses have testified before the Court in the pre- summoning evidence. He has further stated that the version that the present complaint has been filed at the instance of Shri Harinder Singh Chahal is not true and has been concocted. Shri Jattana has further stated that the DDR can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence on the material particulars of the complaint and the effect of improvement is to be appreciated by the learned trial court. Shri Veneet Soni, appearing for respondent No.2, states that the civil litigation has been concluded between petitioner and respondent No.2 upto the High Court. He further states that respondent No.2 has nothing to Crl. Misc. No. 870-M of 2005 -3- do with the complaint and she has been un-necessarily dragged into the present litigation. Shri Ranjan Lakhanpal, appearing for respondent No.3, has stated that the matter is inter-se complainant and the accused. Respondent No.3 has nothing to do with the present litigation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that any improvement made by the witnesses is subject matter of appreciation of evidence. Any improvement made can be explained by the witnesses in their cross-examination or can be fatal to the complainant. The arguments of Shri Dhaliwal may have force, but this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not appropriate forum to adjudicate on the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. May 28, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) ndj JUDGE