AMIT KUMAR MATHUR Vs. STATE U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by Amit Kumar Mathur directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. By virtue of the impugned order the learned trial Court had acquitted accused Mohinder Singh but held that sufficient grounds were made out to summon the petitioner as an accused. Notice was directed to be issued to him. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that Vishnu Parshad is injured complainant. In his complaining statement he recites that he works as a domestic servant with a lawyer. On 31-3-1990 at about 10.30 A.M. he was going on a bicycle to drop his friend. The complainant was sitting on the carrier of the cycle. After he had crossed Sector 10 and truned towards Sector 3, they were stopped by C.R.P. guard. A car was coming from the side of Sector 3. They stopped. In the meantime, an ambassador car of white colour came from the side of Sector 4/9 and hit him on the back side. The car driver who was a young boy of fair complexion ran away. After sometime, he stopped. His name was Amit. The complainant was injured. This led to registration of a case for rash and negligent driving.

(3.) Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against one Mohinder Singh. The name of the petitioner had been kept in column No. 2. After the trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate held that there was no evidence against Mohinder Singh and he was acquitted but from the statement of Vishnu Parshad and Barinder Kumar the trial Court held that sufficient ground was made out to summon the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order followed.