SUNIL KUMAR Vs. N C T OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The High court has quashed charge framed against the respondents under S. 308/34 Indian Penal Code and has sequelly quashed proceedings against the respondents under S. 323/34 Indian Penal Code on the ground that the police could not have investigated the said offence without the permission of a magistrate.

(3.) The dispute is between the tenants and the landlords of a premises in Delhi. On 27/9/1992, there was a clash between the two sides. Both sides allegedly were injured. The landlords are the accused in the instant. case. Sunil Kumar is the victim of the crime. After the matter was reported to the police, his medico-legal examination was conducted by the doctor-in-charge, who after enumerating the injuries opined them to be grievous. Dr Dabbas, whom we have summoned today to explain the medico-legal report, was the doctor who supervised and endorsed the report. According to him, the injuries have been termed grievous because two of them were lacerated wounds and one was a haematoma and since the blows were aimed at the head, they had endangered life. The learned Additional Sessions Judge towhom the case was committed had framed charges against the respondents under S. 308/34 Indian Penal Code, the gravamen of the charge being that an attempt to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder had been made. a whether the injury was grievous or simple deserved a back seat in face of the charge under S. 308/34 Indian Penal Code. Yet the High court when approached in its revisional power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashed the charge in finding room in the medico-legal report to opine that the injuries were simple. The High court observed as follows: