Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2001.
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2001.
Date of decision:4-10-2008
Jarnail Singh.
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and others.
...Respondents.
...
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.
...
Present: Mr. G. S. Gill Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S.Pannu, AAG Punjab.
...
K. C. Puri, J.
Judgment.
In this Criminal Revision, the petitioner has laid a
challenge to the order dated 5.10.2001 passed by Shri Sukhdarshan
Singh Khaira, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Moga whereby
he granted permission to the prosecution for the withdrawal of
prosecution of all the cases. Resultantly, all the accused in all the
Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2001.
-2-
cases were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Briefly stated, the prosecution story in case State Versus
Jagjit Singh is that the said case was registered on the statement of
Nachhattar Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of Rajeane,
made before HC Surinder Singh on 16.12.1991 that he has four
brothers and his father had one brother. His uncle Darbara Singh
who was issueless used to reside with them in their house. He
owned 9-1/2 Killas of land and he died about 4 to 6 months prior to
his making statement. Before his death, he executed a Will in
favour of all the five brothers. On the day of Bhog ceremony of his
uncle Darbara Singh, his widow Ranjit Kaur was brought to his
house and since then she never came back. In the above-said land,
wheat crop was sown. Gurmail Singh accused executed a sale deed
in his favour to the extent of ½ share out of the share of Ranjit
Kaur, widow of Darbara Singh and Gurmail Singh was asking
them to deliver possession of the land in dispute.
On 15.12.1991, Nachhattar Singh along with his brother
Jarnail Singh and his father Gulzara Singh (now deceased) went to
their fields to irrigate the wheat crop, where his mother Gurdial
Kaur, Harjit Kaur and his niece Sharanjit Kaur had gone to deliver
their meals and started washing their clothes on the motor.
Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2001.
-3-
Meantime, at about 1.00 PM, Sadhu Singh, Sarpanch, armed with .
12 bore gun, Jagtar Singh, Gurmail Singh, Natha Singh and Harnek
Singh armed with Gandasas, Avtar Singh with .315 bore rifle, Dev
Singh with Takua, Charan Singh with Gandasa, Gurcharan Singh
with Kasia, Jagjit Singh with .12 bore gun, Gopal Singh with
Takua, came to their fields, in pursuance of their common
intention. On reaching there, Jagtar Singh raised a Lalkara that
they should not be spared and be taught a lesson for not delivering
the possession of the land to them. In the meantime, Harnek Singh
attacked the complainant and caused injuries on his head. He also
gave a blow from the reverse side of the Gandasa on his head.
Natha Singh gave two Gandasa blows causing injuries on the front
side of his neck and left shoulder. Jagtar Singh also gave Gandasa
blow to his brother Jarnail Singh which hit him on his right eye.
He also gave another Gandasa blow which hit him on his cheek.
Gurmail Singh accused gave Gandasa blows causing him injuries.
Gurcharan Singh gave Kasia blow. Other accused also gave him
injuries. Gurcharan Singh gave Takua blow which hit Paramjit
Kaur on her hand. Gopal Singh caused injuries on the person of
Gurdial Kaur. Sadhu Singh and Avtar Singh also fired in the air
with their respective weapons. Jagjit Singh gave Butt blows to
Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2001.
-4-
Swaranjit Kaur. Manjit Kaur also received injuries caused with the
Butt by Jagjit Singh. On raising of alarm by the complainant party,
the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons.
The investigation was taken by the police. After
completion of same, challan was presented against the accused.
Since a criminal complaint arising from the same
occurrence was also filed, therefore, the State case and the
Criminal Complaint were amalgamated and further proceedings
were ordered to be held in the State challan.
The accused were charge-sheeted accordingly to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Sessions Case State Versus Jarnail Singh etc. being off
shoot of the main challan was also entrusted to the said Court.
Charges under Sections 148, 447 and 506 IPC were framed against
the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The said cases were pending for prosecution evidence
for more than nine years. The learned Addl. P.P moved
applications under Section 321 Cr.P.C for withdrawal of the
prosecution in both the cases, in public interest.
As noticed above, the applications were allowed vide
the impugned order and the accused were acquitted.
Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2001.
-5-
Feeling aggrieved with the said order, Jarnail Singh,
complainant in the complaint case has filed the instant Criminal
Revision, challenging the correctness of said order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the Public Prosecutor has no authority to withdraw the complaint
filed by the complainant. At the most, the Public Prosecutor can
withdraw the State case. The learned trial Court has committed
illegality by allowing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the
complaint filed by the complainant/revisionist.
The State counsel could not controvert the above-said
argument.
I have considered the submissions made by both sides
and have gone through the record of the case.
So far the facts of the case are concerned, the same are
not in dispute. The revisionist has filed a complaint which was
being persued alongwith the State case. The State moved an
application under Section 321 Cr.P.C for withdrawal of complaint
case. The complaint as well as State case have to be tried together,
in view of Section 210 Cr.P.C. At the most, the State could
withdraw the case on the basis of FIR but has no authority to
withdraw the complaint case. The learned trial Court has
Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2001.
-6-
committed illegality by dismissing the complaint also, at the
instance of the Public Prosecutor.
Otherwise also, the Court has to see whether the request
of the State under Section 321 Cr.P.C is genuine and in
consonance with justice, in view authorities in cases
V.S.Achuthanandan Versus R. Balakrishna Pillai and others,
(1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 299 and Abdul Karim etc.etc. v.
State of Karnataka and others etc.etc., AIR 2001 Supreme Court
116. Since the revisionist has not challenged the withdrawal under
Section 321 Cr.P.C by the State counsel in respect of State case, so
this question is left open.
Consequently, this Criminal Revision stands accepted.
The order dated 5.10.2001 passed by Shri Sudarshan Singh Khaira,
the then Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide which the
complaint case has also been dismissed as withdrawn stands set
aside and the complaint titled Jarnail Singh Versus Gurmail
Singh and others, is ordered to be restored at its original number.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga is directed to decide
the said complaint case in accordance with law.
The complainant/revisionist is directed to appear before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga on 3.11.2008.
Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2001.
-7-
A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Moga for strict compliance.
October 4th ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge
