SUKHJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 16.09.2013 vide which revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in limine. The petitioner on whose statement FIR No. 145 dated 20.08.2007 for offences under Sections 324, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, was registered at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, Punjab, filed an application before the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon and arraign private respondent No. 2 as additional accused to face trial with the accused already sent to trial on the basis of evidence so far led. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record attached and the orders passed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that private respondent is posted as Constable in Punjab Police. He is also a resident of the village to which the parties belong and thus influenced the investigation. It is further contended that a specific injury on the person of petitioner-complainant was attributed to respondent No. 2 and the same was also found on the medico-legal examination of the petitioner. This as per medico legal report (Annexure P-7) is injury No. 2 being complaint of petitioner left little finger. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner in fact there was swelling around this injury No. 2. This contention is not supported from MLR Annexure P-7. The doctor rather specifically reported that there was no external mark for injury No.

(3.) The Revisional Court has considered the principles applicable to the issue extensively by relying upon the judgments of Apex Court in Michael Machado & Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2000 3 SCC 262 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors., 1983 1 SCC 1.