CRR-2592 v. State of Ha

Judgment

1. By way of instant revision pet petition, petitioner seeks quashing o shing of order dated r dated 27.9.2022 passed by learned A rned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwa Palwal, vide which which the application filed by him u him under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. fo P.C. for summoning oning Sourabh, son of Babu Singh, S ingh, Sumer, son of Budhi, Mohan, so han, son of Latoor a toor as additional accused to face trial

ce trial in criminal case bearing FIR N FIR No. 89 dated 2 ated 22.4.2020, registered under Sect r Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 506 o , 506 of IPC, Sectio Section 3(1)(s)(a), 33, 89 of Sched Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Trib d Tribe (Prevention ention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in s 9 (in short “the SC/ST Act), at Polic t Police Station Has on Hassanpur, District Palwal, was dis as dismissed.

2. Facts as mentioned in para 2 para 2 of status report filed by way o way of affidavit of avit of Suresh Kumar, HPS, Deputy eputy Superintendent of Police, Hoda , Hodal, District Pal - ict Palwal, are reproduced as under:- GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2592 2592-2022 (O&M) 2- -2 “On 14.04.2020, ASI Aas Mo Mohd. was present at Police Statio tation and in the the meantime, MHC of the Police S ice Station informed him that Lilara ilaram (petitioner) ner) son of Nanuwa, resident of Bh f Bhaindoli, District Pawal had bee injured in in a fight and had been admitted itted to Government Hospital Hoda odal, District Pa t Pawal. Upon receiving this inform formation, ASI Aas Mohd. reached hed at Governmen nment Hospital, Hodal, District P ct Palwal for necessary action an n and obtained th ed the MLR (Medico Legal Report) ort) and rukka of the injured Lilaram am. As per MLR MLR No. PA/HDL/200/2020 dated 1 ted 14.04.2020, the doctor recorded rded a total of two f two injuries: (i) (ii) Injury No.1 – Blunt inju injury, advised NCCT Head. Injury No.2 – Blunt inju injury, advised X-ray. The doctor ctor referred the injured Lilaram to m to Civil Hospital, Palwal for furth urther treatment. ent. The injured Lilaram met wi t with the investigating agency an y and submitted a ted a written complaint in which h ch he has stated that “I belong to g to a Scheduled led Caste. Sarpanch was standing ing outside with labourers to remov an obstruct truction placed in the drain and path pathway. At that time, a dispute wa te was going on b on between Sumant son of Latoo atoor, Saurabh, son of Babu Sing Singh, Umesh, son , son of Sumant, Lala @ Ashok, son , son of Sumant, Bania, son of Latoo atoor, Mohan, so , son of Latoor and Sumer, son of n of Buddhi. We were watching th ng the quarrel fro l from inside our house at the doorw oorway. Seeing the dispute, we we e were making a a call to 100 number (police h e helpline). When they noticed u ed us looking tow g towards them, we went inside. Imm Immediately, all of them ran toward our door, or, forcibly opened it, caught hold hold of me and started bearing m g me. When the c the children tried to rescue me, they they were also beaten. They dragge me outside tside into the street and threw me i me into the mud. They beat me wi e with sticks, kick kicks and fists and also threw stones ones upon me. They used caste base GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2592 2592-2022 (O&M) 3- -3 abusive wo e words and hurled filthy abuses re es referring to my mother and siste sister. The Sarpan rpanch and neighbours came and r nd rescued me. Even after rescuin scuing me, they ag y again attacked inside the house, s se, saying, “This Bawariya has drun our blood, ood, kill him.” They again beaten m ten me with sticks and stones. Thre Three days earlie arlier, I had also submitted an appli pplication at police station in which hich I had clearl early stated that a fight might oc t occur and we were under threa threat. Therefore, ore, I request you to ensure the safe safety of a poor Dalit like me and and to take strict l rict legal action against these anti- -social and influential persons. O s. On the basis of sis of which present FIR No. 89 date dated 22.04.2020, under sections 14 s 147, 148, 323, 4 23, 452, 506 of IPC & 3(1)(s) of S of SC ST Act has been lodged at P at PS Hassanpur npur, District Palwal which is attach ttached with the petition as Annexu P-1.”

3. It emerges from the docu documents on record that initial initially investigatio tigation was conducted by ASI ASI Aas Mohd. after which investigatio tigations were carried out by the then he then DSP. During investigation, o tion, on

2.6.2020, s 020, some of the respectables of th of the village were joined and we d were questioned. tioned. The DSP was of the opinio opinion that accused Saurabh, son o son of Babusingh, singh, Umesh, son of Sumant, Bania , Bania, son of Latoor, Mohan, son o , son of Latoor and or and Sumer, son of Buddhi, did i, did not participate in the inciden ncident. Accordingl rdingly, Section Section 34 IPC was a was added.

4. It further emerges from docum documents on record that investigatio tigation was again c again conducted by another DSP, who , who was of the opinion that Saurab aurabh, son of Bab f Babu Singh, Umesh, son of Suma Sumant, Bania, son of Latoor, Moha Mohan, son of Lato f Latoor and Sumer, son of Buddhi, w ddhi, were all involved and offences u nces u/s 147, 148, 3 148, 323, 452, 506 IPC and Section Section 3(1)(s)(A) of SC/ST Act we ct were made out v out vide CD No.07 dated 27.06.2020. .2020. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2592 2592-2022 (O&M) 4- -4

5. Pursuant thereto, the matter atter was again enquired into and th and this time, the In the Investigating Officer revised his ed his own opinion and concluded th ded that all the pers e persons mentioned above were inn ere innocent. Nonetheless, challan wa lan was filed agains against Sumant and Ashok for comm commission of offences punishable u able u/s 188, 323, 4 323, 452, 506 read with Section 34 I n 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/S f SC/ST Act. Duri During the course of trial, an appl n application for summoning Saurab aurabh, Sumer, Mo er, Mohan, Umesh and Bania as addit s additional accused was moved by th d by the complainan lainant, which came to be dismissed missed by the then learned Addition ditional Sessions Ju ions Judge, Palwal, vide impugned ord ed order dated 27.9.2022. Aggrieved o ieved of which, pres h, present revision petition has been fil een filed before this Court.

6. During the course of hearing hearing, learned counsel for petition etitioner very fairly fairly admits that statement of com of complainant on oath has not bee ot been recorded ti ded till date. It is in the light of this of this fact that learned counsel for th l for the petitioner s ioner seeks permission to withdraw t draw the present revision petition wi on with liberty to fi ty to file a fresh one on the same caus e cause of action, if need so arises, i. ises, i.e. after exami examination of the complainant.

9. Allowed to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn with a with aforesaid liberty. Pending application(s), if any, if any, shall also stand dispose of. .2026

20.03.2026 (AARADHNA SAWHNEY NEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document