TEJ BIR Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000452-000452 / 2011
Diary number: 16252 / 2010
Advocates: ATISHI DIPANKAR Vs
KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.452 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.6699/2010)
Tej Bir and another ...Appellant(s)
- Versus -
State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
GANGULY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred from the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 1st
April, 2010, in Criminal Revision
No.1486/2009 (O. & M.) whereby charges
framed by the learned Additional Sessions 1
Judge, FTC Karnal, Haryana dated 17th
February, 2009, in M.S.C. case No.41/2009
against Kewal Kishan, one of the accused,
was quashed. The charges framed against
Kewal Kishan are, inter alia, under Section
120B/307 read with Section 34 IPC and
Sections 27/30 of the Arms Act.
3. According to the appellant no. 1, who was
the informant in the said F.I.R. No.217
dated 29.6.2008 the facts of the case are
that Ram Narain had three sons: Sher Singh,
Kehar Singh and Mehar Singh and a daughter
Raj Bala. Kewal Kishan is married to Raj
Bala. Sher Singh was murdered on 29th
March, 2005 and was survived by his wife
Babita and two children. Kehar Singh also
passed away in 2007. After the demise of
these two brothers, some disputes with
respect to the finances and property of the
family arose.
2
4. To resolve these disputes, a panchayat was
convened on 29th June, 2008 at Ram Narain’s
house in the village Risalwa. This was
attended by appellant no. 1, Tej Bir, his
father Pratap Singh, uncle Ranbir Singh and
cousin Shishpal Singh. Others who attended
the panchayat included Narendar, Mahender
Singh, Balwant Singh, Som Dutt, Mehtab, Jai
Bhagwan and Jasmer Singh. The accused Raj
Bala, with her son Sarveshwar alias Jony
had gone to attend the panchayat. It was
further submitted that during the course of
the panchayat, an altercation arose between
those present, and Raj Bala and Sarveshwar.
Resultantly, the mother and the son pulled
out their pistols and fired a round each.
The round fired by Sarveshwar hit Narendar,
appellant no. 2 in his belly, while the
round fired by Raj Bala hit Tej Bir,
appellant no. 1 in his right arm. Mehar
3
Singh also fired a round. It is stated that
they then fled from the scene in a car
(Maruti Alto), bearing number HR - 06M –
2755, registered in the name of the said
Kewal Kishan. It was repeatedly stated in
the F.I.R. that the entire conspiracy was
hatched by Kewal Kishan. The injured
persons were immediately admitted to
Community Health Centre, Assandh.
5. The police were informed of this incident
and the Inspector/Station House Officer of
Police Station, Assandh reached the said
Community Health Centre, and preferred an
application to the Medical Officer so as to
know the position of the injured. On being
satisfied that the injured persons were fit
to be examined by the police, the Inspector
examined the injured, and recorded their
statements u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. An F.I.R. was
then registered against Kewal Kishan, Mehar
4
Singh, Raj Bala and Sarveshwar. The same
day, Kewal Kishan, Mehar Singh and Raj Bala
were arrested, and the said car belonging
to Kewal Kishan was taken into possession.
The fourth person named in the F.I.R.,
Sarveshwar escaped arrest. A licensed
revolver of 0.32 bore, and 4 live rounds
were seized from the possession of Raj
Bala. After the completion of the
investigation, a Final Report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Magistrate
with respect to Kewal Kishan, Mehar Singh
and Raj Bala. Thereafter, charges were
framed.
6. Kewal Kishan preferred an application under
section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 before the High Court,
whereby the High Court quashed the order of
Additional Sessions Judge with respect to
the charges framed against Kewal Kishan
5
inter alia on the ground that there was no
evidence against him.
7. It is well settled that at the stage of
framing of charges the High court should
not exercise its power of revision by way
of quashing the charges by confining its
attention only to the recitals in the
F.I.R.
8. An F.I.R. can never represent the entire
evidence of the case. In the instant case,
even though in the F.I.R., a reference was
made to Kewal Kishan as masterminding of
the conspiracy, the High Court should have
refrained itself from quashing the charges
by just referring to the recitals in the
F.I.R.
9. In the case of State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and Ors. (AIR 2000 SC 665), it has been
6
held that High Court in criminal revision
cannot appreciate and weigh the materials
on record for coming to the conclusion that
charge against the accused could not have
been framed. This Court held that the
settled legal position is that at the stage
of framing of charge, the High Court has to
prima facie consider whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused and the High Court is not
required to appreciate the evidence and
arrive at the conclusion whether the
materials on record are sufficient for
conviction of the accused or not. The test
at this stage should be, whether after
accepting the charge, as framed, any case
is made out.
10. But the same is not the situation here if
we look at the charge.
7
11. The same position has been reiterated by
this Court in Ram Kumar Laharia v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (AIR 2001 SC 556) in paragraphs 8 and 9.
12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal
position this Court cannot affirm the view
taken by the High Court.
13. In the course of hearing of the matter
before this Court, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 2 made a
statement that respondent No.2 has been
acquitted by the trial court. This Court
has gone through the judgment of the trial
Court and found that the aforesaid
statement of the learned counsel is not
correct. Since the charge against
respondent No.2 was quashed by the High
Court and he did not have to face the
trial, there is no question of acquittal of
8
respondent No.2. A person cannot be
acquitted unless he faces the trial.
14. For the reasons aforementioned, so far as
charge against respondent No.2 is
concerned, the judgment of the High Court
in quashing the charge is set aside.
15. Charge framed against respondent No.2 is
restored. Let him face the trial in
accordance with law. The appeal is allowed.
.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)
.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) February 14, 2011
9