Yusuf and Ors. vs State of Haryana and Anr.

N.S.Shekhawat J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad had been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioner No.1 was the Sarpanch of Village Madanpur, Faridabad and on 07.01.2019, he was getting the drains of the village repaired. When the repair of drains was going in front of the house of respondent No.2, he stopped the repair work and threaten the petitioner No.1, his brother Kasam i.e. petitioner No.2 and his uncle. Even, the petitioners No.1 and 2 tried to make respondent No.2 and his family member understand, but they did not agree and threatened them. Even they attacked the petitioners No.1 & 2 and their companions. Ultimately, petitioner No.1 moved a complaint against respondent No.2/complainant and a DDR No. 12 dated 07.01.2017 was registered in Police Station Sikrona in this regard. On 12.01.2017, respondent No.2 also moved a complaint against the petitioners in the same police station. The police called both the parties on 31.01.2017 and a compromise was effected between the parties and a DDR No.7 dated 31.01.2017 was lodged in the police station regarding the mutual compromise between the parties. However, surprisingly, on 08.03.2017, respondent No.2 filed the present criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners and others in the Court of Area Magistrate, Faridabad under Sections 147,148,323,325,326,452 and 506 of IPC. The Trial Court summoned a report under Section 202 Cr.P.C (Annexure P-2) from the local police. After considering the preliminary evidence, vide the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-3), the Trial Court ordered the summoning of the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323,325,148,149 and 506 IPC. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad and vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-7), the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dismissed the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in the present case, the matter was initially reported to Police Station Sikrona and two separate reports were lodged by the police, however, on 31.01.2017, the compromise was effected between the parties and the matter was closed. However, after two months all of a sudden, respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners in the Court of Area Magistrate, Faridabad and produced the false witnesses before the Trial Court. Even, the petitioners were wrongly summoned by the trial Court by completely overlooked the report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In fact, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the matter has been already settled between the parties and thereafter, the petitioners chose not to initiate any criminal action against respondent No.2. However, the Trial Court had committed grave error in taking cognizance of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. Even, from a perusal of the preliminary evidence of CW-1 Harmood Khan and Fatima, CW-2, it is apparent that they had made contradictory statements before the Trial Court and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside by this Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have raised several disputed questions of fact, which can never by adjudicated by this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Further, even in the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1), the respondent No.2 had categorically stated that he had moved an application to Police Station Sikrona on 12.01.2017, but the police had failed to take action against the accused. Rather, the police had colluded with the accused in the present case and chose not to take action against the accused in the present case. He further submits that from a perusal of the preliminary evidence, it was apparent that the ocular version was duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court had passed well reasoned and speaking order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

In the present case to prove the case against the petitioners, the respondent No.2 had examined Harmood Khan and Fatima, both injured as CW-1 and CW-2, respectively. Even, both the injured had suffered serious injuries on their person, which were duly corroborated by CW-5 Dr. Harish Handa and CW-6 Dr. Sachin Garg and they proved the M.L.R of the injured as Ex.CW6/A and Ex.CW6/B. Even, both the doctors had not only produced the medical record, but the M.R.I Ex.CW4/A was also proved on record by CW-4 Vikram Singh. Apart from that, even the injured in the present case had suffered fractures and apparently, the injuries could not have been self-suffered.

Moreover, I have carefully perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court and it has been rightly concluded that a prima facie case under Sections 323,325,148,149 and 506 IPC was made out against the petitioners.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to certain discrepancies appearing in the testimonies of CW-1 and CW-2, however, I agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that such discrepancies or contradictions in the statements of the witnesses cannot be appreciated by this Court, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, specially when the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court had found no substance in the said submissions.

Even otherwise, I have carefully perused the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court and find no reasons to deviate from the findings recorded by both the Courts and the impugned orders are liable to be upheld by this Court.

As a sequel of above discussion, the present petition must fail and is ordered to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.