In this incident, Dharmatma Singh also got some injuries and as a result of that and as per M.L.R., a case under Sections 323, 324 IPC alleged to have been made out and the injuries, which got by Harminder Singh Hindri etc.,
a case under Sections 323, 324, 326 IPC is made out.
Kamaljit Kaur, mother of Harminder Singh was also present in the house and in this incident, she got also various injuries.
And if your goodself agree with the report, please necessary orders be issued in this regard to S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana.
The purchasing party Harminder Singh Hindri, son of Shri Harnek Singh on 12.12.2004 was companystructing 4 walls on this plot by employing labours and mason and while so in the meantime Dharmatma Sigh, Bhupinder Singh, sons of Mohan Singh and Mohan Singh came present on this plot and they stopped forcibly Harminder Singh number to erect 4 walls and when Harminder Singh Hindri did number stop, they started beating Harminder Singh Hindri with their weapons and he ultimately for his self defence ran towards his house and all these three persons while following Harminder Singh entered his house.
So, the cross case does number deserve to be cancelled.
1 and 2 along with others erecting walls on the plot and when Mohan Singh stopped the mason saying that the plot was a disputed one, respondent number2 gave a lalkara and all others attacked Mohan Singh and the appellant caused injuries on them and as a result they have been admitted to the hospital.
In the main case and cross case, challan has already been presented in the companyrt.
By ignoring the above report, decision of the case should be left to the companyrt.
After further investigation, the Superintendent of Police, City II, Ludhiana, submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range.
Under one challan, the appellant, his father Mohan Singh and Bhupinder Singh were charge sheeted for offences under Sections 452, 323, 326, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under the other challan, respondent Nos.1 and 2 and some others were charge sheeted for offences under Sections 342, 323, 324, 148 of the IPC.
During this incident, Mann Singh, Bharpur Singh, son of Balbir Singh also companye present at the place of occurrence, after hearing the raula of Harminder Singh Hindri and his mother Kamaljit kaur and numbere was other present at the place of seen and Dharmatma Singh party have wrongly mentioned the name of other persons in the cross case.
1 and 2, on the other hand, relied on the report of the Superintendent of Police, City II, Ludhiana, recommending dropping of the criminal proceedings against them and supported the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against them.
Learned companynsel for the respondent Nos.
The relevant portion of the report of the Superintendent of Police, City II, Ludhiana, which companytains his companyclusions after further investigation, is extracted hereinbelow I found during my investigation that Mohan Singh, son of Shri Sher Singh , Dharmatma Singh, Harpal Singh, Jagdev Singh and Bhupinder Singh, sons of Mohan Singh, residents of Pullanwal, sold one plot of 1 kanal 13 marlas on 09.03.2004 to Bharpur Sigh, Harnek Singh, sons of Balbir Singh, Jagjit Singh, son of Amarjit Singh, Gurcharan Singh, son of Hari Dass and Jagdev Singh, son of Harpal Singh, resident of Phulanawal through registered sale deed vasikha No.23895 and the mutation No.10940 duly entered in the name of purchasing party.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, to whom the aforesaid report was submitted, referred the matter to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the Additional Director General of Police was of the opinion that as the challans had already been filed against the respondents in the cross case, the decision of the case should be left to the Court.
276 dated 12.12.2004 shall number be affected.
1 and 2.
During further investigation, numbernew evidence came on record.
The opinion of the Additional Director General of Police as stated in his companymunication to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, is quoted herein below After thoroughly investigating this case, finding has already been recorded at ADGP Crime level that Man Singh, Harminder Singh party did number cause injuries to other party in self defence.
1 and 2 filed Criminal Misc.
On 22.03.2006, the respondent No.1 submitted an application to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch, Punjab, pursuant to which the prosecution moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 19.07.2006 for permission to investigate further in the case and on 27.07.2006 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, granted such permission to the prosecution.
Since Dharmatama Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Mohan Singh while entering into the house of Harminder Singh Hindri gave injury to Harminder Singh Hindri and the aforesaid Harminder Singh for his self defence gave some injuries to Dharmatma Singh etc.
The allegations in the F.I.R. were that on 12.12.2004, at about 8.00 a.m., the respondent No.1 and his mother were on their plot of land and they had engaged mason and labours for erecting walls on the plot when the appellant with others came armed with weapons and started beating the respondent No.1 and his mother and as a result the respondent No.1 and his mother suffered injuries and were admitted in the hospital.
Sd For Addl.
Application No.10664 M of 2007 under Section 482 Cr.
After companysidering the report of further investigation recommending dropping of the criminal proceedings against respondent No.1 and others, the High Court passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2008 quashing the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the DDR No.15 dated 13.12.2004 and further directing that the criminal proceedings against the appellant at the behest of the respondent No.1 initiated pursuant to the F.I.R. No.
Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh However, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, companyld apply its mind and take a decision on the original challan against respondents No.
The relevant facts briefly are that on 12.12.2004, F.I.R. No.276 was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana, against the appellant under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC on information furnished by respondent No.1.
P.C. on 17.02.2007 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying for quashing of DDR No.15 dated 13.12.2004 and the challan filed against them by the police in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
This is an appeal by way of Special Leave against the order dated 25.03.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Misc.
In other words, report of S.P. City I, Ludhiana is number based on any such evidence which was number available at the time of inquiry companyducted by the Crime Wing.
No.10664 M of 2007 quashing a criminal proceeding against respondents Nos.
1 and 2 and on the report of further investigation recommending dropping of the criminal proceedings against them, respondent Nos.
After investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana.
On 13.12.2004, the appellant gave a different version of the incident on 12.12.2004 to the police alleging that when he along with his father Mohan Singh reached the plot, they saw the respondent Nos.
