Crl.Misc.No.M-27421 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-17.9.2010 Azad son of Chandgi Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of the facts, that need a necessary mention, for deciding the limited core controversy in the present petition, is that on 30.6.2010, respondent Nos.4 to 15 were stated to have caused multiple injuries on the persons of PWs Azad Singh (petitioner), Randip Singh and his family members with deadly weapons by entering into their house. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Randip Singh, the present case was registered against the private respondents, vide FIR No.198 dated 30.6.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 341 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari. 2. Concisely, the petitioner claimed that in the wake of medical opinion (Annexure P2) and C.T.Scan report (Annexure P3) showing the presence of fracture of bone of head, the police did not add the offence punishable under section 307 IPC. In all, according to the petitioner that although the offence under section 307 IPC is made out, but the police is not adding this offence in the offences already committed by the accused. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought direction from this Court to the police to add the offence under Crl.Misc.No.M-27421 of 2010 2 section 307 IPC by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.PC in the manner described here-in-above. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 4. As is evident from the record that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the police is not adding the offence under section 307 IPC against the private respondents. Section 307 IPC postulates that “whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he, by that act, caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished under this section.” The mere fact that the petitioner suffered a fracture of bone, ipso facto, is no ground to add the offence under section 307 IPC in the absence of any evidence in regard to the requisite intention of murder, which is an essential ingredient of this section and is deeply lacking at this stage in the present case. 5. After the completion of investigation and collection of entire evidence, the police will submit the final police report and in any case what offence the accused have committed, would be a moot point, to be decided by the trial court after framing the requisite charges. Therefore, to me, issuing any such direction at this preliminary stage would amount to interference with the investigation of the police, which is not legally permissible. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the present petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. 17.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge