PARVEEN SHARMA Vs. CHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been directed against order dated 26.3.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for offence under Sections 302/34/201/217/218/120-B IPC along with Rajwinder Singh @ Raju, Maninder Singh SPO, Constable Sajjan Singh and Pritam Singh ASI.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that with regard to occurrence statedly happened in May 1995 pertaining to death of Gurmeet Singh son of complainant Charan Singh, FIR No. 227 dated 9.9.1999 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Sangrur. After investigation, cancellation report was prepared, submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur and the same was accepted by the Court after providing an opportunity of hearing to complainant Charan Singh vide order dated 27.5.2004. The complainant filed a detailed protest petition expressing grievance against the cancellation report but the Court refused to accept the pleas raised by the complainant. The complainant filed a revision petition i.e. Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2006 challenging order passed on May 27, 2004 but the same was dismissed by this Court on 24.8.2009. The application filed by the complainant for recalling order dated 24.8.2009 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.9.2009 passed in CRM No. 45929 of 2009. It is submitted that as the Judicial Magistrate accepted the cancellation report after considering the protest petition filed by the complainant and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was affirmed in revision by this Court, permitting the complainant to file a private complaint and calling upon the accused to face trial, is illegal being violative of provisions of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"). In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Major General A.S.Gauraya vs. S.N.Thakur, 1988 1 RCR(Cri) 3, T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala, 2001 3 RCR(Cri) 436 and judgments of this Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 1985 2 RCR(Cri) 152, Supinder Singh vs. Provident Fund Inspector, 1997 4 RCR(Cri) 449.

(3.) Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the contrary, would argue that while accepting the cancellation report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, the right of the complainant to file a complaint was reserved and the petitioner or the other accused did not assail the findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur reserving a right with the complainant to file a complaint. It is further argued that the revision petition preferred by the complainant was not decided on merits as the same was dismissed for want of prosecution and therefore, there was no occasion with this Court to examine correctness or otherwise of order dated 27.5.2004 either in regard to acceptance of cancellation report or giving a right to the complainant to file a private complaint. It is further submitted that as the accused were never put to trial on the basis of FIR No. 227 dated 9.9.1999, no such plea is otherwise tenable that proceedings of the private complaint and summoning order would amount to double jeopardy attracting the bar created under Section 300 of the Code. The last submission made by counsel is that the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner do not deal with the present controversy and they have been rendered by the Hon'ble Courts in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances before the Courts concerned.