Crl. Misc. No.M-8506 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-8506 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 4, 2010 Nachhattar Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Abhishekh Chautala, AAG, Punjab. Mr.M.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek the quashing of a cross-version recorded as DDR NO. 18 dated August 13, 2008 annexure P-7, which has been recorded in case FIR No. 88 dated August 10, 2008 under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur. The FIR was registered at the instance of Joginder alleging that on August 8, 2008 Satnam Singh, Crl. Misc. No.M-8506 of 2009 [2] Maghar Singh, Sian Singh, Gurjant Singh, Darshan Singh, Swaran Singh and Varinder Singh had attacked him and inflicted injuries on him with kirpan, kirch, dah etc. Gurjant Singh got lodged a DDR No.18 on August 13, 2008 after a gap of 4 days alleging that on the same day i.e. August 8, 2008 he was attacked by petitioners- Nachhattar Singh and Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh had caught-hold of him and Nachhattar Singh gave a blow with rod of hand pump on the left arm. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners are government employees and Balbir Singh, petitioner No.2 is an eye-witness in FIR which is lodged by Joginder Singh. Nachhattar Singh is present on the spot but he has been falsely implicated in the cross-version at the instance of Gurjant Singh. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the contention that the cross-version has been recorded at the instance of Gurjant Singh after 4 days of the occurrence which is also the subject matter of FIR already registered by Joginder Singh. No doubt, there has been a delay in lodging of the cross-version. The probability of cross-version being false cannot be ruled out at this stage but since a specific role has been attributed to the petitioners of having hit Gurjant Singh with a rod of hand-pump resulting in the fracture of his left arm, it cannot be said that unrebutted allegations in the DDR constitute no offence. The parameters of the judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 604 are to be applied to quash the cross-version also. Other pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioners can be raised by them at the time of the trial in Crl. Misc. No.M-8506 of 2009 [3] the cross-version. Personal appearance of petitioners No.1 and 2 in the cross-version will remain exempted during the pendency of the trial subject to any conditions imposed by the trial Court. The petitioners may be represented through counsel during the trial and even at the time of recording of evidence, as per provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of granting the liberty of exemption to the petitioners taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances. August 4, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE