High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Lal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CRM-A-319-MA-2006  RD-P&H 9565 (30 October 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision: 6.11.2006
Lal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the appellant.
Virender Singh, J.
At the very outset, we may point out that the memo of parties prepared by the counsel is not correct according to the facts of the case.
Respondent Amar Singh was not summoned after recording of the preliminary evidence and the remaining three respondents, namely, Priti Lal, Pawan Kumar and Rinku have now been discharged by the learned trial Court after recording the pre-charge evidence. Therefore, Amar Singh son of Karta Ram (respondent No.5) has been wrongly arrayed as one of the respondents in this case. Mr. Dinarpur admits his fault.
Appellant Lal Singh filed a complaint under Section 109/120-B/148/149/339/352/506 IPC against the present respondents.
After recording the preliminary evidence, respondents No.1 to 3 were ordered to be summoned for the aforesaid offences. After the appellant himself had appeared in the witness-box as CW1, three respondents had put in appearance. He also examined one Jeevan Singh and Rajinder Parshad as CW2 and CW3 respectively. The learned trial Court after Crl. Misc. No.319-MA of 2006 2
examining the entire evidence at pre-charge stage and finding no case against the respondents discharged them. It is against that order the appellant (complainant) has preferred the instant appeal.
An application bearing No.319 MA of 2006 under Section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code has also been filed for grant of special leave to appeal.
We have heard Mr. Dinarpur, learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance gone through the impugned judgment.
Although the impugned judgment is not nicely worded yet for arriving at the just conclusion, we with the assistance of Mr. Dinarpur have gone through the relevant evidence produced by the appellant- complainant and are not inclined to take a contrary view than the one already taken by the learned trial Court as Mr. Dinarpur has also not been able to pinpoint any demonstrable perversity in the impugned judgment which may call for our interference.
Resultantly, we are hesitant in granting special leave to appeal and dismiss Criminal Misc. No.319-MA of 2006.
November 6, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.