Crl.Rev.no.487 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No.487 of 2009 Decided on : 02 -09-2009 Kewal Krishan alias Kevi and another ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 9.1.2009 in which a charge has been framed against the petitioners pursuant to the provisions of Sections 307, 323, 364 read with Section 511 IPC, 325, 342, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioners are facing the following allegations as per the FIR:- “on 12.4.2008, complainant Baldev Kumar visited Courts at Gidderbaha and when his case was adjourned, complainant on his scooter alongwith his son Jatinder Kumar Advocate who is practicing at Gidderbaha Courts on his motor cycle preceded towards their house for taking lunch. Due to rush, his son Jatinder Kumar was left behind the complainant, when complainant reached at the gate of temple near Gaushala, accused Kewal Krishan alias K.V. son of Mukhtiari Lal armed with pistol and Bikramjit alias Dara son of Mathra Dass armed with wooden Dasta already present there. They were having Crl.Rev.no.487 of 2009 2 Zen car bearing registration no. HR 51-8430 and Swift car of silver colour bearing registration no. HR 13C- 0588 and in both the cars some persons were sitting. Bikramjit Singh stopped the scooter of complainant and 6/7 persons came out of the cars and Kewal Krishan raised Lalkara to teach a lesson to Debi (complainant) for closing their business. Thereafter, Kewal Krishan fired at complainant with intent to kill him which passed from near his head. Then, Bikramjit alias Dara caught the complainant from his arms and 6/7 persons who came from the cars started beating the complainant with wooden Dastas. Thereafter, he fell down and Bikramjit gave Dasata blow at the back side of left shoulder of complainant. Thereafter, when they tried to abduct complainant by bundling in their cars, he raised alarm 'Marta marta'. Then, his son Jatinder Kumar, Sikander Singh son of Gurjant Singh and Rachhpal Singh came at the spot. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons.” The police who completed the investigation submitted a challan against the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 307, 341, 364, 323, 325, 511, 34 IPC. Thereafter, the charge was also similarly framed against the petitioners. The charge was framed under the provisions of Sections 307, 323, 364 IPC read with Section 511 IPC, 325, 342, 34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act against petitioner Kewal Krishan and under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, 364 read with Sectio 511 IPC, 342, 325, 323 IPC against accused Bikramjit Singh. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners Crl.Rev.no.487 of 2009 3 that even if all the allegations are taken to be correct then at best an offence charged under Section 307/34 IPC could have been sustained against them and there is no material on record on the basis of which charge under Sections 364/511/325 IPC could be sustained against them. He referred to the provisions of Section 364, 342 IPC to say that such a charge could not be framed against them. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contended that keeping in view the allegations against the petitioners the present petition is totally mis-conceived and deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is indeed no doubt that at the time of framing of charges only prima facie material has to be seen by the Court but at the same time while doing so it has to keep in mind the allegations which form the basis of prima facie material against the accused. The charge essentially has to be in tune with the allegations which have been set out against the accused persons and the ultimate order of charge cannot be disproportionate to the allegations set out against a person. The order should also reflect an application of mind to this effect otherwise the order of framing of charge would be merely rendered to be a formality for simply accepting the report of the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. This could never have been the intention of the Legislature. The framing of charge is therefore a serious issue which should be dealt with by the Court in all its sobriety as this is a stage from where the effective trial in the shape of recording of evidence begins against the person. Reverting back to the facts of the case provisions of Section Crl.Rev.no.487 of 2009 4 364, 342 IPC which are extracted hereunder when re-conciled with the allegations made in the FIR only sound to be out of synchronization with each other. The allegations in the FIR even if taken to be correct do not even remotely suggest the commission of an offence under Section 342, 364 IPC even though an offence under Section 307 is suggested from the sequence of events. For the same very reason, Section 511 IPC would also not be attracted. “Section 342 IPC Punishment for wrongful confinement – Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 364 IPC Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life) or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” In this view of the matter, for the reasons recorded above, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 9.1.2009 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for passing appropriate order in accordance with law by keeping in mind the aforesaid observations. September 02, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge