KAMALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Dharminder Verma, who submitted that he is running a Computer Lottery Shop. The petitioner had been working with the complainant for the last three years. The complainant-Dharminder Verma caught Kamaljeet Singhpetitioner committing theft of cash, therefore, his services were dispensed with. The petitioner had borrowed Rs.32,000/- from the complainant when the services of the petitioner were terminated. Then the petitioner gave the complainant Rs.7,000/- and the balance amount remains to be paid which was agreed to be paid within one month. The complainant had asked the petitioner that the balance amount be paid to his mother Smt. Shakuntla Rani, however, the petitioner did not repay the balance amount to the mother of the complainant. When the mother of the complainant asked the petitioner for the money, he kept putting her off on one pretext or the other. On 27.9.2009, at around 5.00/6.00 p.m., the complainant sent his mother Smt. Shakuntla Rani to the shop of the petitioner to get the balance amount. When she did not return, the complainant himself went to the Lottery Shop of the petitioner. When he was about 10 Karams from the shop of the petitioner, he saw that the petitioner, his brother Rinku, his paternal uncle's son, namely, Sunny and one more boy were grappling with the mother of the complainant. When the complainant tried to stop them, then Kamaljeet Singh-petitioner stated that the complainant should be taught a lesson for demanding the money. On this the petitioner took out a 'Kirpan' and gave a blow on the head of the complainant who in order to ward-off the blow and save himself raised his left arm and the blow landed on the left wrist. Then Rinku and Sunny took out iron rods and caused injuries to the complainant, however, the same were declared to be simple in nature. Two injuries attributed to the petitioner are grievous in nature. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the 'Kirpan' that has been used is yet to be recovered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact on the date of incident the petitioner had submitted an application (AnnexureCr. Misc. No.65509 of 2009 and Cr. Misc. No.M-31694 of 2009 P.3) to the Police alleging that while he was sitting in his shop, Dharminder Kumar Verma, who is a complainant along with his son and mother came to their shop. When Dharminder Verma came to the shop, it is alleged, he pointed a revolver at the head of the petitioner and they threatened them that they had taken money from the complainant side and had not paid interest and neither the principal amount had been returned. In case the money was not paid, they would be finished. It is submitted that the petitioner raised hue and cry and also called the Police Control Room. There is no date on the application with regard to the version of the petitioner and neither has any DDR entry is shown to have been recorded. Although, vernacular/application bears the stamp of the Police Station, however, it is not shown whether the same has been received. Therefore, not much reliance can be placed on the said application (Annexure-P.3) at this stage.