Zile Singh Chauhan vs Sanjeev and Another

Rekha Mittal, J.—The appellant lays challenge to judgment dated 13.03.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, whereby the complaint filed by Zile Singh Chauhan, under Sections 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against Sanjeev Kumar and Pawan Kumar, son and father respectively in regard to occurrence dated 30.05.2006 at 6.00 p.m., was dismissed. Counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court has dismissed the complaint on assumptions and presumptions, which is not permissible. The trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the complainant examined Dr. S.H. Sehgal (CW1) and Ram Kumar (CW3) as witnesses during his preliminary evidence. The trial Court has wrongly held that the criminal proceedings have been launched as a counter-blast to the civil litigation initiated by the accused seeking specific performance of the agreement.

I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

After securing presence of the respondents on the basis of summoning order passed by the Magistrate, the case was fixed for recording pre-charge evidence. During pre-charge evidence, the complainant alone appeared in the witness box and failed to examine Ram Kumar, an alleged eye witness to the occurrence or the doctor, who conducted medico legal examination. Admittedly, the parties are at variance due to civil dispute leading to filing of suit for specific performance against the complainant by the accused. The learned trial Court has rightly refused to rely upon solitary statement of the complainant without corroboration from any source whatsoever to frame a charge against the accused.

Counsel has failed to point out any error much less illegality in the order impugned as would call for interference particularly in the circumstances that this Court is examining the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.