Criminal Revision No. 2972 of 2009 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No. 2972 of 2009 (O&M)
Dated of decision : 13.11.2009
Amar Kumar and others ..... Petitioners
vs
Gurdev @ Nanha ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present revision is to the order passed by the learned
court below framing charge against the petitioners in a private complaint filed by
the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the incident
which had taken place in the morning of 9.5.2007, petitioner no. 6 got registered
FIR against the accused therein on 10.5.2007 in which challan has been presented.
As all the accused were not challaned even a complaint was also filed. The
respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners clubbing two incidents
i.e. one which allegedly took place in the morning of 9.5.2007 and the second
which allegedly took place at 7 pm on the same day. The complaint has been
treated as a cross case and the proceedings in the FIR and the aforesaid case have
been clubbed. The petitioners had even challenged the summoning order in the
complaint in which interim stay was not granted by the learned Sessions Court. In
view of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted that the complaint filed by the
respondent against the petitioners for two different incidents cannot possibly be
said to be a cross case and clubbing thereof to be tried with the challan in the FIR
got registered by petitioner no. 6 is totally illegal. As the complaint filed by the
respondent is triable by a Magistrate whereas the challan presented in the FIR by
the learned Sessions Court.
It was not disputed at the time of hearing that order clubbing the trial
in the FIR and the complaint case was not challenged by the petitioners at the
relevant time and against the summoning order there was no interim stay granted
in favour of the petitioners.
Criminal Revision No. 2972 of 2009 -2-
After hearing learned counsel or the petitioners, I do not find any
merit in the revision.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is
technical in nature. Once the order of the court for clubbing of the trial in the FIR
and the complaint was not challenged it is too late to raise the issue when the
charges have been framed against the petitioners. The court can very well consider
the merits of the complaint as well as the challan presented against the accused in
the FIR got registered by petitioner no. 6 on the basis of evidence to be led by the
parties.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Since the
revision has been dismissed, the application for condonation of 36 days’ delay is
also dismissed.
13.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge