Joginder Singh vs State of Haryana

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prayer is that First Information Report No. 158 of 1992,

registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Beri, District Rohtak, be quashed. A copy of the F.I.R. registered at the

instance of Rajbir complainant has been appended as annexure P1 to the petition. The crux of the F.I.R. is that on September 2, 1992, the

petitioner alongwith some other coaccused intercepted a truck being driven by Rajbir complainant and after injuring him, committed robbery of Rs.

9,500/ from the truck. In the F.I.R., the names of the accused were not mentioned but they were described as being of medium built and of

medium height. The present petition has been filed challenging the registration of the case as also all the subsequent proceedings, primarily on the

ground that the complainant Rajbir as also cleaner of the truck also named Rajbir who witnessed the incident were residents of village Chiri and as

such, it had the petitioner been present at the spot, his name would have appeared in the F.I.R., the more so as the petitioner was a member of the

Panchayat of the village as also of the Block Samiti. It has also been urged that height of the petitioner being 6''8"" made him a distinctive figure

while in the F.I.R. the accused is reported to be of medium height.

In the reply filed on behalf of the State, there has been no specific denial to the facts mentioned above. It has, however, been argued by Mrs.

Madan, learned A.A.G., appearing on behalf of the State that the challan has since been filed in Court and the petitioner can take his chance to

secure an acquittal on the facts stated above.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the stand of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner as also the complainant and

the cleaner of the truck Rajbir belong to village Chiri. It is also clear that the petitioner being a Panch and also member of the Block Samiti, must

be well known in the area. Moreover, the description given in the F.I.R. does not even remotely tally with the physical dimensions of the petitioner.

It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no identification parade was ever held so as to find out whether the

petitioner and the coaccused were actually involved in this case. In this view of the matter, the case against the petitioner appears to be a motivated

one.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings qua the petitioner Joginder Singh only are quashed.