1. This revision is directed against the order of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, in case titled ˜State v/s Harbhajan Singh™, passed on 30.04.2004, whereby, charge under Sections 307 and 323 RPC has been converted into Sections 279 and 377 RPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2003 in the morning, petitioner was coming to Jammu at his own vehicle for domestic work. He stopped his vehicle at Miran Sahib and when he was standing with one Darshan Kumar Ishar, the respondent/accused came on his vehicle, called the petitioner and started abusing him without any reason and when the petitioner objected to it, the respondent/accused threatened the petitioner that he would be done to death and taught a lesson in the way. Respondent/accused left for Jammu. Petitioner also proceeded towards Jammu and when he reached near Upper Gadi Garh near Telephone Exchange, the petitioner stopped there having some work with Joginder Singh and when he was talking to Joginder Singh, the respondent/accused came driving his vehicle i.e. car bearing No. 5683/JK02-J at a high speed, hit the petitioner intentionally and deliberately due to previous enmity and caused injuries to the petitioner and due to injuries, the petitioner became unconscious and was shifted to Government Medical College, Hospital, Jammu, where he regained conscious.

3. Originally, the case against the respondent/accused was registered on some information under Sections 279, 337 RPC. During investigation, statement of the injured was recorded and offences under Sections 307, 323 RPC were added. After investigation, the challan was presented before the Illaka Magistrate. The case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the same was committed to the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, after perusing the material collected on the record, chargesheeted the accused under Sections 279 and 337 RPC and sent back the file to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, for trial in accordance with law.

4. Mr. Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, has erroneously discharge the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 307, 323 RPC. He submitted that from the report submitted under section 173 (2) CrPC alongwith statements recorded under section 161 RPC sic (Cr.P.C), prima facie, it shows that there was a case under Sections 307, 323 RPC. He contended that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, for discharging the accused, has considered the contradictions in the statements of witnesses. He further contended that these contradictions couldn™t be taken into consideration at the time of framing the charge.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Thapa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the threshold, raised preliminary objection that the case was instituted against the respondent on a police report submitted under section 173 (2) CrPC, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present appeal. He contended that it is the duty of the State to file the revision, if, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, committed any illegality or irregularity. He further submitted that revision can be entertained if a formal permission from the Public Prosecutor has been sought. He placed reliance on case ˜Kishan Swaroop v/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi™ AIR 1998 SC 990, that private party has no right to file a case instituted upon a police report. He further contended that the injuries on the person of the petitioner/complainant were simple in nature, which were results of an accident. He further contended that there was no intention on the part of respondent to kill the petitioner. He contended that the learned trial Court has rightly discharged the respondent under Sections 307 and 323 RPC.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document