VERMA, J. - (1.) SUKHVINDER Singh, Sarjeet Singh and Krishna have moved this petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 8. 11. 1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar Camp Sri Karanpur, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences u/s 147, 148, 302/149, and 120-B, I. P. C. against the petitioners. It appears that on 8. 7. 1993, Kulvinder Singh S/o Balwant Singh r/o 27h, P. S. Keshrisinghpur was admitted to Male Surgical Ward-B of Sri Ganganagar Government Hospital in an injured condition. S. H. O. Sri Karanpur, recorded statement of said Kulvinder Singh on 8. 7. 1993 at 3. 00 a. m. In his statement Kulvinder Singh stated that on the previous day, he alongwith his father Balwant Singh had gone to Sri Karanpur Mandi in their tractor for selling the mustard crop. They sold this crop at Sri Karanpur on the Shop of Ramdhan Das Tej Mal. After selling the said crop, both of them started on the tractor for their village. They reached a place known as Shiv Mandir Kutia, Sri Karanpur at 6. 15 p. m. They found that a tractor and trolley were parked on the way obstructing the passage. Upon this Kulvinder Singh tried to bye-pass the said tractor. The driver of the tractor obstructing the passage reversed his tractor with a view to obstruct the passage of the tractor of Kulvinder Singh and his father. Kulvinder Singh had to take down his tractor from the road to the road side soon afterwards Darshan Singh, his brother SUKHVINDER Singh, Sarjeet Singh and brother-in-law of Darshan Singh whose name was not known came out from abush. All of them were armed with lathis. All these persons came near his tractor and tried to assault Kulvinder Singh and his father. At this Kulvinder Singh started running. Upon this 3-4 persons who were present and whose names were not known surrounded him and gave lathi blows on his hands and feet, with the result that he fell down. Even after he had fallen, he was attacked by the said assailants. Meanwhile, his father Balwant Singh tried to run away and he was surrounded by Darshan Singh, Sarjeet Singh, SUKHVINDER Singh and brother-in-law of Darshan Singh and all of them assaulted Balwant Singh with lathis and gave lathi blows to Balwant Singh on his hands and feet. When this assault was being made, Gurmeet Singh, brother of Kulvinder Singh and Lakhvinder Singh, brother-in-law of Kulvinder Singh came there on a motor cycle. At this the assailants made good their escape. After some time a bus came from side of Sri Ganganagar and one Madan Lal came there. Shortly afterwards one jeep also came there with police personnel. Kulvinder Singh and his father Balwant Singh were removed in this jeep to Sri Karanpur. Kulvinder Singh became unconscious because of injuries and regained consciousness in Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. On regaining consciousness Kulvinder Singh learnt that his father had already succumbed to his injuries. In his statement Kulvinder Singh stated that daughter of Darshan Singh was married to his younger brother Gurvinder Singh and the relations between the parties were slightly strained because Gurvinder Singh was not keeping his wife with him. A Panchayat was also held in this connection. It was further stated that out of this enmity this assault was made after pre-planning the same.
(2.) THE statement further recited that Kishan Lal Jat, who was friend of Darshan Singh was seen moving near the shop of Ramdhan Das Tej Mal a number of times and as soon as Kulvinder Singh and Balwant Singh left the shop of Ramdhan Das Tej Mal, he (Kishan Lal) was seen leaving the place on a motor cycle, presumably with a view to inform the assailants. It was stated that Kishan was also privy to the conspiracy hatched with a view to assault Kulvinder Singh and his father. Upon this statement a case u/s 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B, I. P. C. was registered and due investigation was started. Post mortem of Balwant Singh was made on 8. 7. 1993 and a large number of injuries were found on his person. In the opinion of the doctor conducting autopsy, the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. It appears that Kulvinder Singh had also sustained a large number of injuries and he was treated for the same but eventually he also succumbed to his injuries on 19. 7. 1993. A large number of injuries were found on his person also and in the opinion of doctor conducting the autopsy the cause of death was due to shock and septicaemia due to injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. During the course of investigation statements of various witnesses were recorded and the police eventually challaned various assailants. However, no challan was put up against Sukhvinder Singh, Sarjeet Singh and Krishna. The assailants who had been challaned were duly committed to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur. Before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, an application was moved on behalf of Gurvinder Singh S/o Balwant Singh for taking cognizance against Sukhvinder Singh, Sarjeet Singh and Krishna. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides was of the view that prima facie a case was disclosed for offences u/s 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 120-B, I. P. C. against Sukhvinder Singh, Sarjeet Singh and Krishna also. He, accordingly, ordered issue of non-bailable warrants against all the three accused persons named above. Aggrieved, Sukhvinder Singh, Sarjeet Singh and Krishna have filed this petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C. and it is prayed that the order by which cognizance has been taken against them may be quashed and may be set aside and they may be discharged of all the charges levelled against them.
(3.) THE petition has been opposed seriously on behalf of the complainant as also on behalf of the State by the learned P. P. I have heard Warned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to show that conflicting versions have been given by prosecution witnesses and because of such conflicting versions, it should be held that there was no material against the present petitioner for taking cognizance. It was further contended that the learned trial Judge did not consider the evidence in its totality otherwise he would have come to a conclusion that no case for taking cognizance was made out. At the out set I may state that powers under section 482, Cr. P. C. have to be exercised sparingly and with great caution and circumspection particularly when there is some evidence against the accused persons, which has been considered sufficient by the trial Judge for taking cognizance. This power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, the learned trial Judge has relied upon that part of the evidence, which implicates the present petitioners. At this stage, I am not inclined to take a different view of the evidence from that taken by the learned trial Judge, who had the entire material before him. Eventually whether the evidence would be sufficient to frame a charge against accused persons or not would be a question to be decided by the learned trial Judge at appropriate stage after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties. Whenever two views are possible in respect of some evidence and a particular view has been taken by the learned trial Judge and that view is supportable by prosecution evidence, then it would not be for this Court, while exercising powers u/s 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the order of cognizance passed by the trial Court. As stated already, an order taking cognizance cannot be lightly interfered with. The petitioners will have adequate opportunities of assailing the prosecution evidence when the question of framing of charge is threshed out and, therefore, I am of the opinion that this Misc. Petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C. is devoid of merit. ;