JAGMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the application moved by the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was declined qua respondent No.2.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2 Raj Kumar was specifically named in the FIR and specific role had been attributed to him. Trial Court fell in error in dismissing the application qua him under Section 193 Cr.P.C. The plea of alibi taken by respondent No.2 could be taken by him in defence but at this stage, the trial Court had erred in accepting the plea of alibi taken by respondent No.2 on the basis of call details/ location of the mobile tower. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Dharam Pal and others vs. State of Haryana and another (in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2003 ) wherein, it was held as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that although, the name of the said respondent had been mentioned in the FIR but it had been duly established during investigation that he was not present at the spot. Trial Court had given detailed reasons for accepting the investigation conducted by the investigating agency qua innocence of respondent No.2.