SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."), has been preferred seeking quashing of orders dated 6.9.2013 and dated 10.1.1993 (wrongly written 1993 in place of 2013) in criminal proceedings pertaining to FIR No. 14 dated 24.1.2011 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 452, 427, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), registered at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran.

(2.) The brief backdrop of the case is that Rajwant Kaur, complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR against Chanan Singh, Satnam Singh (petitioner), Sahib Singh and Partap Singh, sons of Chanan Singh in regard to murder of Kabul Singh, brother of the complainant. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate against all the accused except Satnam Singh. During trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, Satnam Singh was summoned as an additional accused in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Satnam Singh challenged the summoning order in CRM-M- 10856 of 2013 which was decided on 10.4.2013 with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 475 Cr.P.C. through his counsel which was disposed of by the trial court, vide impugned order dated 6.9.2013. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested in this case in February 2011 and remained in custody for a period of about 02 months. Later, in view of request made by the investigating agency, he was discharged from custody. It is vehemently argued that as the petitioner is a member of armed forces, an intimation is required to be sent to his commanding officer in order to enable the army authorities to exercise the option if the petitioner is to be tried by the court martial and not by an ordinary criminal court. Counsel has submitted that the trial court seriously erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, thus, the order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) However, counsel did not make any submission to impugn order dated 10.1.2013 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning him to face proceedings along with the accused already before the trial court. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions and passing of summoning order holding the petitioner liable to face proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial court, therefore, the trial court has rightly held that as the petitioner has not been brought before the court, he cannot seek issuance of any intimation to his commanding officer in compliance with the provisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that as the petitioner did not furnish any particulars whatsoever, in regard to his designation, place of posting, name of the commanding officer and simply filed an application with vague allegations, no fault can be found in the impugned order dismissing his application under Section 475 Cr.P.C. With regard to challenge to order dated 10.1.2013 summoning the petitioner to face proceedings as an additional accused, it is submitted that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner instead of availing the alternative remedy has sought to impugn the order by filing the instant petition which is not permissible in law. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before adverting to the submissions in regard to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 475 Cr.P.C., it is appropriate to deal with his challenge to order dated 10.1.2013 summoning him to face proceedings in the trial. The petition earlier filed by the petitioner to challenge the said order was disposed of by this Court on 10.4.2013. A relevant extract from the order passed in those proceedings reads as follows:-