HARJINDER SINGH Vs. SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by SI Harjinder Singh, complainant in FIR No. 119 dated 2.12.1998 under Sections 353, 332, 186, 506, 323, 148/149, IPC P.S. City Batala. The petitioner in his statement on the basis of which the case was registered, named Sarabjit Singh and Sucha Singh but had not named Satnam Singh, Surinder Singh Sodhi, Jasbir Singh and Gurcharan Singh as his assailants. However, in the FIR he did state that Sarabjit Singh and Sucha Singh were accompanied by two drivers and two other persons. The complaint mentions about six persons, out of whom two had been named in the FIR and four had not been named because they could not be identified. However, in the supplementary statement, their names were disclosed. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, vide order dated 6th September, 1999, discharged Satnam Singh, Surinder Singh Sodhi, Jasbir Singh and Gurcharan Singh for the sole reason that their names had not been mentioned in the FIR. The first information report is only the starting point of the criminal investigation in a case. Once the investigation commences, more evidence comes to light and the result of investigation is summed up in the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Not only the FIR but also all other evidence collected during investigation of the case are considered before the accused are sent up for trial. In the present case also, this course of action was followed and six accused were set up for trial but the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein simply for the reason that their names were not mentioned in the FIR. The learned Magistrate also considered the fact that that no specific act has been attributed to these respondents.

(2.) In my view, the learned Magistrate misdirected herself and wrongly discharged respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein. The accused had participated in the crime but in the FIR their names were not mentioned because at that stage their names were not known. Later, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded and their names were disclosed and thereafter they were sent up for trial. The impugned order deserves to be quashed and the same is hereby set aside.

(3.) It is stated at the bar that the trial of respondents Nos. 1 and 6 is in progress and evidence of some witnesses has been recorded. It will be open to the learned Magistrate to consider the course of action to be adopted against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.