Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 115 (PNJ)

Ram Mehar v. State Of Haryana

2002-01-25

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant-petitioner, seeking quashment of the order dated 21.4.1998, passed by the CJM, closing the pre-charge evidence of the complainant-petitioner, by the order of the Court and adjourning the case for arguments on the question of charge. 2. The facts, in brief, are that complainant-petitioner, Ram Mehar had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 323/325/427/452/504/506, IPC, against accused respondent Nos. 2 to 8 namely Mamu Ram, etc. After recording preliminary evidence, these respondents were summoned as accused and the case was fixed for pre-charge evidence. On 21.4.1998, after noticing that no pre- charge evidence was present and there was no justification for granting any further opportunity, the learned CJM closed the pre-charge evidence of the complainant by Court order and adjourned the case to 1.6.1998, the date already fixed in the connected case, for arguments on the question of charge. Aggrieved against this order dated 21.4.1998, passed by the learned CJM, the complainant filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in this Court. 3. In the present petition, it had been alleged by the complainant-petitioner that Miss Sheela, sister of the petitioner, had lodged FIR 205 dated 26.7.1992 under Sections 354/451, IPC, in Police Station, Urlana, against respondent No. 7, Hukam Chand. It was further alleged that respondent No.7, Hukam Chand, got registered a false case, bearing FIR 212 dated 30.7.1992 under, Sections 325/34, IPC, in Police Station, Urlana, against all the family members of the petitioner namely Maha Singh, Ram Mehar, Ram Bhaj, Zile Singh, Bhim Singh, Prem Singh, Kuldip Singh, Sheela and Khazani. It was alleged that the said FIR was registered on the statement of respondent No.7, Hukam Chand, with regard to the occurrence, which had allegedly taken place on 24.7.1992. It was alleged that the said case was pending in the Court of CJM, Panipat. Copies of the orders dated 24.3.1998 and 21.4.1998, passed by the CJM in the said case, were attached as Annexures P-1 and P-2. It was further alleged that on 27.8.1992, the petitioner was taking his meals in his house and at that time, his mother, Smt. Khazani, and sister, Ms. Sheela, were also present and at that time, accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 entered the house of the petitioner along with Lathis and started abusing the petitioner with filthy language and threatened to kill him. Sheela, were also present and at that time, accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 entered the house of the petitioner along with Lathis and started abusing the petitioner with filthy language and threatened to kill him. It was further alleged that they pushed Smt. Khazani and Ms Sheela and gave beatings with lathis to the petitioner, who received 13 injuries. It was alleged that on the alram raised by him, he was saved by Ant Ram and Bhim Singh, neighbourers. It was alleged that the petitioner was admitted in Civil Hospital, Panipat, where the doctor had medico-legally examined him. It was further alleged that the petitioner had gone to Police Station on 28.8.1992 for registration of a case, but the concerned SHO did not register the case, whereupon on 29.8.1992, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 323/325/427/452/504/506, IPC,against accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and that the same was pending before the CJM, Panipat. Copies of the orders dated 24.3.1998 and 21.4.1998, passed in the said criminal complaint, were attached as Annexures P-3 and P-4. It was alleged that when the petitioner had filed the criminal complaint, the list of witnesses was given on the last page of the complaint. The said list included, the complainant- petitioner as one of the witnesses, besides Smt. Khazani. and Ms. Sheela, Ant Ram, Bhim Singh and Dr.PK Nigam. It was alleged that after, recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant, the CJM summoned the accused and the case was fixed for recording pre-charge evidence. It was alleged that since the cases were against both sides, both the cases were being taken up together by the CJM since long. It was alleged that in the Police case, bearing FIR 212 dated 30.7.1992, under Sections 325/34, IPC, the petitioner, along with Ram Singh, Ram Bhaj, Zile Singh, Bhim Singh, Prem Singh, Kuldip Singh, Sheela and Khanzani, was present (as accused), whereas in the complaint case, the pre-charge evidence of the petitioner, Ram Mehar, and that of Smt. Khazani, Sheela. Ant Ram and Bhim Singh, was to be recorded. It was alleged that the complaint case was taken up along with the said case. Ant Ram and Bhim Singh, was to be recorded. It was alleged that the complaint case was taken up along with the said case. It was alleged that the petitioner, besides Smt. Khazani and Sheela, were already present in the Court in the State case, but in the complaint case, the learned Magisrate, vide order dated 21.4.1998, closed the pre-charge evidence of the complainant on the ground that no witness was present in the Court. It was alleged that the said order dated 21.4.1998, passed by the learned Magistrate, was liable to be quashed, especially when the petitioner and two of his witnesses were already present in the Court and instead of recording their evidence, in the pre-charge evidence, the learned Magistrate had closed the pre-charge evidence of the complainant and had fixed the case for arguments on the question of charge. 4. In the written reply, filed by accused respondent Nos. 2 to 8, it was alleged that the complainant had filed a false complaint against the accused- respondents. It was alleged that the State case and the criminal complaint were never clubbed. It was further alleged that the complainant had failed to produce any witness in the complaint case and accordingly, the learned Magistrate had closed the pre-charge evidence of the complainant by Court order. It was alleged that the complainant had failed to file the process fee for the witnesses before the trial Court and it was not the duty of the Magistrate to have recorded their statements. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. The State case, titled as State v. Ram Singh, etc. arising out of FIR 212 dated 30.7.1992 under Sections 325/34, IPC, was in respect of the occurrence, which had allegedly taken place on 24.7.1992. The criminal complaint titled as Ram Mehar v. Mamu Ram, etc. was in respect of the occurrence, which had allegedly taken place on 27.7.1992. For that reason, the two cases could not be termed as cross-cases. However, the fact remains that these two cases were between the two parties with regard to two occurrences. In the State case, the present complainant - petitioner, Ram Mehar and others were the accused, whereas in the complaint case, the present petitioner, Ram Mehar, was the complainant. As referred to above, in the State case, besides Ram Mehar, petitioner, Smt. Khazani and Ms. In the State case, the present complainant - petitioner, Ram Mehar and others were the accused, whereas in the complaint case, the present petitioner, Ram Mehar, was the complainant. As referred to above, in the State case, besides Ram Mehar, petitioner, Smt. Khazani and Ms. Sheela were also the accused and in the criminal complaint, the present petitioner, Ram Mehar, had cited Smt. Khazani and Ms. Sheela as witnesses, besides two other witnesses namely Ant Ram and Bhim Singh besides Dr. PK Nigam. A perusal of the orders dated 24.3.1998 and 21.4.1998, copies Annexures P-1 and P-2, passed in the State case, would show that on those two dates i.e. 24.3.1998 and 21.4.1998, all the 10 accused in the State case, including the present petitioner, Ram Mehar, Smt. Khazani and Ms. Sheela, were present and the case was adjourned for recording the prosecution evidence. On the same dates i.e. 24.3.1998 land 21.4.1998, before the same Court, the criminal complaint, filed by Ram Mehar, petitioner, was also taken up, as would be clear from the copies of the orders, copies Annexures P-3 and P-4 and on both these dates, the learned Magistrate had noticed that no witness was present. On 24.3.1998, the complaint was adjourned to 21.4.1998 for pre-charge evidence and on 21.4.1998, after noticing that no pre-charge evidence was present, the learned Magistrate had closed the pre- charge evidence of the complainant by the Court order and had fixed the case for arguments on the question of charge. 7. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that even though Ram Mehar, petitioner, Smt. Khazani and Ms. Sheela, were present in the Court, the CJM, Panipat, on 24.3.1998 as also on 21.4.1998, as accused, in the State case, yet in the complaint, filed by Ram Mehar, it was noticed that no pre-charge evidence of the complainant was present. This is Inspite of the fact that so far as Ram Mehar, complainant, is concerned, even his presence is also marked in the order-sheet, being present in Court along with his counsel on both these dates i.e. 24.3.1998 and 21.4.1998. It is surprising that even though the complainant was admittedly present in the complaint case at the time when the complaint was taken up for consideration, yet the learned Magistrate had recorded, in the orders dated 24.3.1998, and 21.4.1998, that no pre-charge evidence was present. It is surprising that even though the complainant was admittedly present in the complaint case at the time when the complaint was taken up for consideration, yet the learned Magistrate had recorded, in the orders dated 24.3.1998, and 21.4.1998, that no pre-charge evidence was present. Similarly, the two other witnesses namely Smt. Khazani and Ms. Sheela were also present in the said Court on these dates as accused in the State case. It appears that both these cases were being taken up by the learned Magistrate on the same dates and because of some confusion, the pre- charge evidence of the complainant was not recorded in the complaint case and the learned Magistrate had closed the pre-charge evidence of the complainant, even though some of the witnesses, including the complainant, were present in the Court. Not only that the two cases were taken up on 24.3.1998 and 21.4.1998, both these cases were also adjourned to 1.6.1998, as would be clear from the orders dated 21.4.1998, copies Anenxures P-2 and P-4, passed in the State case and the complaint case, respectively. There does not appear to be any reason as to why the complainant would not himself appear in the witness box in the pre-charge evidence and would not produce his two other witnesses even though they were present in the Court. In my opinion, the closing of the pre-charge evidence of the complainant in the complaint case, has resulted in mis-carriage of justice, which requires interference by this Court in the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the same is hereby allowed, the order dated 21.4.1998, copy Annexure P-4, passed in the complaint case, closing the pre- charge evidence of the complainant by Court Order, is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. It is directed that after receipt of the file, the learned Magistrate shall give at least two effective dates of hearing to the complainant to produce the pre-charge evidence. 9. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Magistrate, on 22.2.2002 for further proceedings in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate shall fix the date for recording the pre-charge evidence and if asked for, shall issue summons for summoning the witnesses. 9. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Magistrate, on 22.2.2002 for further proceedings in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate shall fix the date for recording the pre-charge evidence and if asked for, shall issue summons for summoning the witnesses. However, it is made clear that the service of the summons shall be the responsibility of the complainant.