Crl. Revn. No.2176 of 2007

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : Crl. Revn. No.2176 of 2007

Date of Decision : November 19, 2007.

Gurpreet Singh and others

....

Petitioners

Vs.

Balwinder Singh and another

....

Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * *

Present :

Mr.S.S.Majithia, Advocate

for the petitioners.

* * *

L.N.MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

Charge under Section 326 IPC was not framed by the

Magistrate against the petitioners but in revision petition, the Revisional

Court, vide impugned order dated 01.10.2007, ordered framing of charge

under Section 326 IPC against Gurnam Singh – petitioner no.2 and charge

under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC against the remaining

petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed

by the accused persons.

Admittedly, on X-Ray examination, fracture was found. The

injury had been caused with sharp weapon. So, the offence falls under

Section 326 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the

injured got himself admitted in the hospital after eight hours. This is hardly

a ground for quashing of charge under Section 326 IPC. It is further

Crl. Revn. No.2176 of 2007

2

contended that the doctor opined that the possibility of the aforesaid injury

being inflicted by friendly hand cannot be ruled out. However, this

circumstance is also not sufficient to scrap the charge under Section 326

IPC when there is specific allegation that the aforesaid injury was caused by

petitioner no.2 with sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also contended that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, vide

report Annexure P-5, found the entire version against the petitioners to be

false. However, if this report is to be relied on, then not only charge under

Section 326 IPC but charge for all the offences should be quashed.

However, on the basis of inquiry report, no such finding can be given by the

Court at the stage of charge. The report of Deputy Superintendent of Police

also, on the other hand, merely states that it is not verified whether the

aforesaid injury was received during the occurrence or was suffered later on.

On the basis of this conclusion, which is in fact no conclusion, charge under

Section 326 IPC cannot be quashed.

For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is

completely misconceived and devoid of merit.

Dismissed.

November 19, 2007

( L.N.MITTAL )

monika

JUDGE