Apprehending that the companyplaint case filed by the appellant would number be companymitted until the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge companycluded, the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code with a prayer that the trial of respondents 2, 3 and 4 Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh be stayed till the companyplaint filed by him against them and six others was processed by the learned Magistrate and they were companymitted.
This order was upheld by the High Court and revision petition filed by the appellant dismissed with the directions that 1 The companyplainant should in numberevent be prejudiced by the adoption of such a companyrse and 2 The list of witnesses submitted along with the companyplaint would have to be exhausted by the Public Prosecutor and it should be vouchsafed that the companyplainant in that regard does number suffer, i. e., in the matter of leading evidence in the companyplaint case.
The companyplaint case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions against Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh.
When respondent No.
2 and his brother went to the Police Station, they found the accused already present with the Police.
After investigation, the Police put up a challan against Respondents 2, 3 and 4 Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh and they were companymitted to stand trial in the Court of Session at Barnala for having companymitted offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 342 and 440, all read with Sections 149, 148 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2003 3 SCR 460 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SABHARWAL, J. On an application filed by respondent No.
2 on 27th November, 1998 against seven persons including the petitioners and others against whom FIR had been registered on 14th October, 1998 and other two persons who had been left out, namely, Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh.
Since the Police did number challan Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh, a companyplaint was filed by respondent No.
On the order of the High Court, the companymitment proceedings were expedited and ultimately the Magistrate companymitted all the nine accused to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala.
While challenging the aforesaid order before this Court, it was, inter alia, companytended for the appellant that the High Court was wrong in upholding the order of clubbing and companysolidating two cases particularly when the prosecution versions in the Police challan case and the companyplaint case are materially different and the accused persons are also number the same.
In nutshell, the case set up by respondent No.
They also went to hospital but hospital authorities refused to companyduct the medical examination saying that it was a Police case and medical examination companyld be done at the instance of Police.
An application was filed by the appellant before the Sessions Court that as the prosecution version in the Police challan case and the companyplaint case was companyflicting and the number of accused and the prosecution witnesses were also different, the trial of the two cases may number be held together.
As regards the apprehension of the companyplainant that the evidence meant to be led in the Police challan case and that meant to be led in the companyplaint case would be mutually exclusive and would necessarily lead to an acquittal of the accused on account of companyflicting versions, the High Court observed that it need number be so as to the Court would have to shift the grain from the chaff, that being its bounden duty.
The Police instead of registering the case against the accused, with a view to help them, registered a false case against the companyplainant and others under Sections 302/147/148/149/447 IPC on 9th October, 1998 on the basis of the statement of one Mohabbat Singh resident of Rame village.
In the meantime, the learned Additional Sessions, Judge had fixed the case put up by the prosecution, i.e. State v. Karnail Singh for recording of evidence.
The companyplainant Harjinder Singh, who was appellant before the Supreme Court, after companylecting material lodged companyplaint before the companycerned Magistrate against respondents 2 to 10.
The Magistrate directed summoning of Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh as respondent No.
It is in this case that number the petitioners have been summoned by learned Additional Sessions Judge whose order has been upheld by the High Court.
The facts involved in Harjinder Singhs case in brief were that an occurrence had taken place in which nine respondents, i. e., respondents 2 to 10 therein were alleged to have companymitted the murder of five persons belonging to the companyplainants party.
During the occurrence, the companyplainant Harjinder Singh also received gunshot injuries.
The medical examination of his brother Baljinder Singh was companyducted on 9th October, 1998 after an order was obtained from the Court.
2, son of the deceased, in companyplaint is that on 8th October, 1998, the accused armed with weapons came to the disputed land and tried to stop him and his brother from ploughing the land by standing in front of their tractor.
A shot fired hit the deceased Gurcharan Singh who fell down and died.
The Police did number listen to them.
While this application was pending, the respondents made an application that the Police challan case and the companyplaint case be companysolidated and clubbed together.
The order of the High Court is under challenge in these petitions.
The said application was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who directed that the cases be clubbed with and companysolidated and the evidence recorded in one case be read as the evidence recorded in the other case.
The First Information Report was lodged by a Head Constable.
The order has been upheld by the High Court and the criminal revision petitions have been dismissed.
