AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Chand Gupta, J.
Crl. M. No. 9688 of 2013
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. M. No. M-5089 of 2013
The present petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 9 of Probation of Offenders Act by the petitioner-complainant in FIR No. 324, dated 27.9.1995, under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Pehowa, for setting aside order dated 16.10.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, vide which application filed by petitioner for taking respondents no. 2 and 3, i.e., Malwinder Singh and Gurnam Singh, into custody for violation of conditions of order dated 19.2.2010 passed by this Court has been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.
Briefly stated, FIR No. 324 dated 27.9.1995 under Sections 323, 325, 148 read with Section 149 IPC was registered against accused-respondents no. 2 and 3, i.e., Malwinder Singh and Gurnam Singh. They were held guilty by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.4.2002. The judgment was upheld by appellate court, i.e., learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, and the appeal against the said judgment was dismissed vide judgment dated 8.10.2004. In criminal revision filed before this Court conviction was upheld and, however, respondents were given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 and were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year. Thereafter FIR No. 1, dated 2.1.2011 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 326 IPC was registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, against respondents no. 2 and 3.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that before expiry of period of one year, another FIR was registered against respondents no. 2 and 3 and hence they have violated the conditions of the bond.
However, the plea cannot be accepted. It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that mere registration of FIR and even serving of chargesheet for recording of evidence are not sufficient to prove guilt of any person. Respondents no. 2 and 3 have not been convicted in the alleged subsequent occurrence/offences.
Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present petition. The same is hereby dismissed.