LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-109

NEERU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On August 12, 2014
Neeru Kumari Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the summoning orders dated 5.7.2013 (Annexure P -5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot on an application made under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) FIR No. 21 dated 12.3.2012 under Sections 307, 326, 341, 148, 149 IPC was registered against the accused Sohan Lal, Rampal along with Madan Lal, Neeru Kumari and Veena Kumari. Madan Lal, Neeru Kumari and Veena Kumari were kept in column no. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.3.2012 at about 8:30 PM, Mintu Saini, complainant along with his uncle Surjeet Singh was coming on motorcycle bearing No. PB -35 -K -5837 from Batth

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has argued that the only role attributed to the petitioners no. 1 & 2 is that they suddenly came in front of the motorcycle which was being driven by Mintu Saini. Thereafter Madan Lal had raised Lalkara and because of their act, the motorcycle was stopped by the complainant and they were inflicted grievous injuries by Sohan Lal and Ram Pal which were declared dangerous to life by the Doctor. She has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Hukam Chand and another vs. State of Haryana and another, : 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 141 to contend that in the FIR, no role or injury has been attributed to the three petitioners hence by merely reiterating the allegations of the FIR while appearing as PW -1, the petitioners cannot be summoned to face a trial. Moreover, since the complainant was having a love affair with the daughter of Sohan Lal, petitioner no. 2, Veena Kumari being the mother of the girl and petitioner no. 1, Neeru Kumari being wife of Ram Pal, the second accused have just been roped in as complainant was nursing a grudge against them.