CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 10 SHI CK 0064

Prabh Dayal vs Surjan Ram and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 31 October 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldip Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal MMO No. 208 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 349 words

Kuldip Singh, Judge

1.

The respondent No. 1 had filed complaint against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 12, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 355, 434, 441, 504 and 506 IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial court summoned Prabh Dayal, Mahant Ram and Jagir Singh and after recording pre-charge evidence framed charge under Sections 434, 323, 447, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against them on 12.8.2008.

2.

The order dated 12.8.2008 was assailed by Prabh Dayal by way of criminal revision No. 30 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge Mandi, who dismissed the revision on 12.8.2011, hence the present petition under Art. 227 of Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 23 of the judgment has recorded a specific finding that trial court in the present case has found prima facie case against the accused and has rightly framed the charge against them.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of PW 1 Surjan Singh, wherein he has stated that he had also filed a civil suit. Prabh Dayal was not on the spot at the time of demarcation. The pre-charge evidence has been considered by the two courts below. The trial court thereafter framed the charge and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against framing of charge.

4.

The present petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings. Once prima facie there are grounds for framing the charge that means, there is material on record for framing of charge. In other words in these circumstances there is no question of quashing of proceedings. The scope under Art. 227 of Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very limited. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any error of jurisdiction. No case is made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of.