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