Judicial findings on complicated issues of fact should be given during the trial of the case, and controversial facts should not be decided before the trial of a criminal case.

ORDER :

P.S. Rana, J.

Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing FIR No.9 of 2012 dated 24.5.2012 registered under sections 336,337, 427 read with section 34 IPC and for quashing consequential criminal proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kinnaur at Reckong Peo District Kinnaur HP.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. It is alleged that on 24.5.2012 at about 1.30 PM at place Thophan within jurisdiction of police station Pooh accused persons being contractor and labour in furtherance of common intention of each others acted rashly and negligently and endangered human life and personal safety of others. It is alleged that accused persons committed blasting operation on Thopan Jangi road and caused hurt to Dara Singh, Amreek Singh and Raj Kumar by way of their negligent act. It is further alleged that accused persons also committed mischief by way of causing wrongful loss and damage to vehicle No. HP-06-2161 and totally damaged the vehicle by way of blasting operation.

3. Investigation conducted and criminal case filed against accused persons before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kinnaur at Reckong Peo. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned accused persons under Sections 336, 337 and 427 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Learned Trial Court after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons framed charge against accused persons under section 336, 337, 427 read with section 34 IPC on dated 8.10.2014. Thereafter learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kinnaur at Reckong Peo listed the case for prosecution evidence. Thereafter present petition filed by co-accused Kuldeep under section 482 code of criminal procedure.

4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners and also perused entire record carefully.

5. Following points arises for determination in present petition :

1. Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition?

2. Final order.

Findings upon point No.1 with reasons.

6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that tender of blasting operation was given to M/s Amit Singla by Chief Engineer Deepak Project vide order dated 23.4.2010 and project operation was not allotted to accused person and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that judicial finding relating to allotment of project by Chief Engineer Deepak Project to M/s Amit Singla cannot be given at this stage of case being complicated issue of fact and judicial finding would be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case in the trial of case. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial finding at this stage of case relating to complicated issue of fact.

7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that there was no nexus between petitioner and execution of blasting work and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that judicial finding relating to the fact whether there was no nexus between petitioner and execution of blasting work cannot be given at this stage of case being complicated fact unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is held that judicial finding relating to complicated issue of fact will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case in the trial of case.

8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that investigating officer with malafide intention exonerated contractor Mr. Amit Singla and his general attorney Sh Ashok Kumar Kataria and ent