IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Crl. Misc. No.47431-M of 2007
Date of decision : 27-01-2009
Ramesh Chand
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Ved Parkash & another
....Respondents
2. Crl. Misc. No.39994-M of 2007
Date of decision : 27-01-2009
Ramesh Chand
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Ved Parkash & another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate,
Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of two Crl. Misc. No. M-47431 of 2007
preferred by Ramesh Chand Vs. Ved Parkash and another u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
for seeking quashing of order dated 14-3-2007 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal, whereby he treated the protest petition to be
complaint and gave opportunity to the complainant to lead his preliminary
evidence and Crl. Misc. No.M-39994-M of 2007 preferred by Ramesh
Chand Vs. Ved Parkash and another u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the
order dated 23-3-2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal.
Crl. Misc. No.47431-M of 2007
-2-
It has been held by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in
Pakhandu and others Vs. State of U.P. And another, 2002, Crl. L.J.
121O as under:-
“From the aforesaid decisions, it is thus clear that where the
Magistrate receives final report the following four courses are
open to him and he may adopt any one of them as the facts
and circumstances of the case may require:-
(1) He may agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by
the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But
before so doing, he shall given an opportunity of hearing to
the complainant: or
(2) He may take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b)
and issue process straightway to the accused without being
bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency, where
he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by
the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed; or
(3) He may order further investigation, if he is satisfied
that the investigation was made in the perfunctory manner, or
(4) He may, without issuing process or dropping the
proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190 (1)
(a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the
same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200
and 202, Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint
should be dismissed or process should be issued.
This view has been reiterated by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-
4542 of 2008 decided on 6-1-2009. A perusal of position of law enunciated
in Pakhandu’s case (supra) show that in the present case, the Magistrate
Crl. Misc. No.47431-M of 2007
-3-
had proceeded u/s 190 (1) (a) upon the protest petition, treated the same
as complaint and thereby he acted u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He had issued
the process against the accused u/s 120-B IPC vide Annexure P-4. The
grievance of the petitioner is that accused should have been summoned
u/s 364 read with Section 511 read with Section 120-B also. Annexure P-4
to Crl. Misc. No.39994-M of 2007 has been assailed in this Court and it has
been stated that the grave error was committed by the Judicial Magistrate,
Ist Class, Palwal for not summoning the accused u/s 364/511/120-B IPC.
Summoing of the accused is just an initiation of the
proceedings. In case pre-charge evidence is led or after charge is framed,
there is sufficient evidence on the case file, charge can always be
amended and framed u/s 364 read with Section 511/120-B IPC.
In the present case, in case from the evidence led
ingredients of offence u/s 364/511 IPC is made out, the petitioner is at
liberty to urge before the Magistrate to frame the charge.
With these observations, Crl. Misc. No.47431-M of 2007
and Crl. Misc. No.39994-M of 2007 are disposed of.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
27-1-2009 JUDGE
manju