BENI PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the present petition, filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the summoning order, dated 27.9.2005. (Annexure P-4), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, as also the order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, directing framing of charges, under Sections 323/307/34 of the IPC.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that in compliance with an administrative order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, requiring all cancellation reports, disclosing offences, exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, to be forwarded to the Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate forwarded the cancellation report to the Court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, who was entrusted with the cancellation report, had no jurisdiction to remit the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to consider a protest petition. The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to treat the protest petition as a private complaint, proceed thereafter to record evidence and summon the petitioners. It is further contended that in view of the aforementioned facts, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to appraise the material on record and holding that the material, before him, disclosed commission of offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, commit the case to the Sessions Judge. It is contended that the aforementioned facts disclose a procedure unknown to law and, therefore, the impugned orders be quashed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the State of Haryana, as also counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the aforementioned facts do not disclose any error of jurisdiction and law or such error of fact as would require interference. The petitioners did not impugn the aforementioned procedure, or the order of summoning before a higher forum at any stage either before the High Court, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., or before the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. It was only at the stage of framing charges that the petitioners sought to impugn the procedure adopted and the orders of summoning and committal to the Court of Sessions. It is further argued that the learned Magistrate is empowered, under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. to record evidence on a protest petition, treat the protest petition as a private complaint, and upon appraisal of the protest petition, and the evidence adduced, pass an order of summoning. The order, summoning the petitions, does not suffer from any illegality. It is further argued that the nature of the injury alone is not the essence of a charge, under Section 307 of the IPC. The material on record should be such as to raise an inference of intention or knowledge that if the injury had caused death, the accused would be guilty of murder. The learned trial Court, after considering the material placed before it, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners should be charged for the commission of an offence, under Section 307 of the IPC. As the impugned proceedings and the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, the present petition be dismissed.