JAIMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M-2486-2018 filed by petitioners - Jaimal Singh and others and CRM-M-2346-2018 filed by petitioner Banta Singh and another seeking quashing of Complaint Case No.76 dated 8.9.2014 titled as "Satnam Singh Versus Mukhtiar Singh and Ors." under Sections 307, 326, 447, 148, 149 IPC and 25 of Arms Act in which Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti had summoned the petitioners as accused for offences under Sections 326, 447, 148, 149 IPC and 25 of Arms Act vide order dated 22.7.2015 as well as the judgments dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide which the said Court has directed summoning of the petitioners and other accused to face trial for the offence under Section 307 IPC dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners and other accused for setting aside of the summoning order.

(2.) As per the version of the petitioners on 4.7.2010 at about 8:30 a.m. when the petitioner party was working in the fields, due to some land dispute Satnam Singh - respondent No.2 attacked the petitioner party in which son of the petitioner No.l, namely Sarwan Singh was murdered; an FIR No.75 dated 4.7.2010 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran against respondent No.2 -Satnam Singh and 10 other persons; the trial of that case has already been concluded and the case is fixed for final arguments; said Satnam Singh accused had manipulated injuries on his person and got himself admitted in Civil Hospital, Patti, however, he did not get himself medically examined; the doctors at Civil Hospital, Patti had recorded a few injuries on the person of Satnam Singh; said Satnam Singh had left the hospital at 11:20 a.m. without informing the doctors, then he got himself admitted in Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran on 5.7.2010 at 3:20 p.m. and he was medically examined there and the doctors found 10 injuries on his person; one Karam Singh had filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti on 8.9.2010 for the offences under Sections 326, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act; Satnam Singh had also filed a revision petition before this Court praying for recording counter version criminal case on the basis of his statement against the petitioner party; reply was filed by DSP, Bhikhiwind stating that a preliminary inquiry had been conducted by the police and the matter was investigated, however, it was found that no cross case was required to be registered; the police had recorded statement of Satnam Singh but found that no cross case was made out; in the complaint filed by Karam Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti had summoned the accused for other offences except offence under Section 307 IPC; the accused Nos.6 and 7 in the complaint were not summoned; in the meanwhile Karam Singh had submitted an affidavit in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti stating that Satnam Singh had not suffered any injury rather injuries on his person were self-suffered and he wanted to withdraw the complaint; Satnam Singh moved an application before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti praying that he may be allowed to be substituted as complainant since the original complainant Karam Singh had withdrawn the complaint on 20.7.2013; the application was dismissed by the Court observing that there was no provision in criminal law for the substitution of the complainant and the applicant had remedy to file a separate complaint; thereafter, Satnam Singh filed a complaint for the same cause of action before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti; in the meanwhile, petitioner Jaimal Singh being complainant in the FIR case had filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti against the accused contending that Satnam Singh had suffered fake injuries and had fabricated the story in connivance with other accused so as to mislead the Court.

(3.) According to the petitioners, Court of Sessions exercising revisional jurisdiction has no power to summon the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and trial of accused cannot proceed together since both the orders are contradictory. The petitioners prayed that the petitions be accepted.