GURDEV SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rup Nagar. dated February 19, 1982, setting aside the order of discharge, dated August 25, 1981, passed by. the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rup Nagar, in case No. 91/18-6-1981 under Sections 323/324/504/34, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE material facts necessary for our purpose lie in a narrow compass. Hakikat Singh accused-petitioner is said to have a well joint with the husband's brother and husband of Surjit Kaur complainant-respondent in village Mudian which has a passage through the fields. It is said that on May 14, 1980, brother of the husband of the complainant along with Ujagar Singh and Raghbir Singh were present at the well. It was found that Hakikat Singh had blocked the said passage by stacking toori. Dharam Singh requested Hakikat Singh to remove the obstruction from the passage but the latter along with his companions started rebuking him, which led to an altercation between them. It is alleged that the accused (now Petitioners) who were armed with weapons like salangs and soti, assulted Dharam Singh with their respective weapons. After this incident, the parties left for their village and near the village the accused again attacked Dharam Singh and Surjit Kaur complainant. This incident was witnessed by Mohinder Singh and Parkash Singh. The complainant had admitted that Dharam Singh also gave some injuries to the accused party in self-defence After going through the preliminary evidence of the complainant, the accused were summoned by the Magistrate to face trial for the aforesaid offences and the complainant was directed to lead evidence for framing the charge against the accused. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused party had lodged a report at the police station against the complainant party and the latter was accordingly, challaned and sent up for trial. The trial Magistrate after perusing the evidence examined by the complainant party and bearing the parties' counsel found that the accused party had caused injuries to the complainant-party in self defence and discharged the accused. Feeling aggrieved, Smt. Surjit Kaur, respondent went up in revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. Thakar Singh and another, C.L.R. (P&H) 503, set aside the order of the trial Magistrate dated August 25, 1981, holding that the Magistrate should have decided both the challan case and the cross complaint together at the same time to avoid conflicting judgment and accordingly remanded the case to the trial Magistrate with the direction that he shall decide the complaint case and the challan case together at one and the same time. Feeling dissatisfied, Hakikat Singh and other have now come up in revision.

(3.) IT is settled law that the jurisdiction of the Court on the revisional side to interfere in the orders of acquittal or discharge is very limited. The case can only be sent back for retrial if there is a manifest illegality in the order and there is grave miscarriage of Justice. But neither of these grounds exists in this case. In Ajmer Singh's case, (supra), there were cross cases between the same parties and both the cases were pending trial in one Court and in that situation, a direction was sought to be issued to the trial Court that the case instituted on a police report and the other cross-case instituted on a private complaint be decided simultaneously. In the present case, the trial Magistrate had tried the case instituted on a private complaint and after holding that no prima facie case was made out, discharged the accused. The facts in Ajmer Singh's case, (supra), are clearly distinguishable and the ratio thereof is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The general rule no doubt is that the cross cases should ordinarily be tried by the trial Court simultaneously but this is a rule of convenience and cannot be universally adhered to. Apart from this, even if, the trial Magistrate had committed the irregularity by deciding the complaint case first, it has no effect of vitiating the trial of that case. In this view I am fortified by a Division Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in Banwari Lal v. Ram Partap, 1979 Rajasthan Criminal Cases 391. Mr. Ujagar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent could not cite any authority before me to show that the order of discharge based on proper and thorough appreciation of evidence and supported by good reasons can be set aside and a retrial be ordered merely because the complaint case was not tried with the challan case and the order of discharge was passed before the conclusion of the trial of the challan case. However, I think it proper to make it clear that the findings of the trial Court given out in the complaint case shall not adversely affect the merits of the challan case.