Surinder Singh @ Judge and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

IN

Whether only oper Pronounced or the Surinder Singh @ State of Punjab a

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

The quashing of the titled 'Harbhaja IPC and Section dated 19.08.202 Gurdaspur, alon

2.

Bri complainant Da Gurdaspur unde of the Arms Act from America to THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

@ Judge and Others

VERSUS and Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE . Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with . Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and . Akhil Godara, Advocate for the . H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. -.-

ANNU J. (Oral) e present petition has been filed criminal complaint bearing No an Kaur versus Dayal Singh etc n 27 of the Arms Act (Annexu 25 (Annexure P-4) passed by the ng with all consequential proceed iefly stated, FIR No. 62 dated ayal Singh son of Barkat Singh er Sections 364, 307, 452, 342, 1 t. As per the allegations in the FI o his village Nawa Pind, alleged JAB AND HARYANA ARH RM-M-6618-2026 (O&M) served on:-11.03.2026 onounced on:- 13.03.2026 ploaded on:- 13.03.2026 operative part/full judgment

....Appellants ....Respondents EEP PANNU petitioner. under Section 528 of the BNSS o. COMI/96/2021 dated 10.06.20 c.' under Sections 307, 452, 120 ure P-1) and the summoning or learned ACJM, Gurdaspur, Dist dings arising therefrom.

24.07.2018 was got registered h at Police Station Tibber, Dist 48, 149, 120-B IPC and Section IR, the complainant, who had co d that on the night of 23.07.2018

for 0-B rder trict by trict n 25 ome 8 at

about 03:00 AM unidentified per inside and assau licensed revolv Scorpio vehicle Thereafter, the allegedly fired s leg. The police w spot. After inqu Police Station T 149, and 120-B Ravinder Singh, Singh, Robert M

3.

It i investigation, th presented again Ravinder Singh respectively, an police presented Ravinder Singh complainant Da the operation of Baljit Kaur was

4.

It i years, responde M, accused Gurvinder Singh, his rsons allegedly broke open the d ulted him. It was further alleged er of the complainant and, at e to their tubewell where he w complainant was taken to the shots from the revolver and one was thereafter informed and the uiry by the police, FIR No. 62 d Tibber, District Gurdaspur under B IPC and Section 25 of the A , Baljit Kaur wife of Ravinder S Masih and other persons. is further the case of the peti he police presented three separa nst Gurvinder Singh and Davind h and Baljit Kaur on the other s nd they were also declared pro d a supplementary challan date and Baljit Kaur. Aggrieved agai ayal Singh approached this Cour f the supplementary challan givin ordered to be kept in abeyance. s further the case of the petition ent No.2–complainant Harbhaja s brother Ravinder Singh and 9 door of his house, forcibly ente that Gurvinder Singh picked up gunpoint, forcibly took him in was allegedly beaten with stic courtyard where Gurvinder Sin e shot hit Robert Masih on his e complainant was rescued from dated 24.07.2018 was registered r Sections 364, 307, 452, 342, 1 Arms Act against Gurvinder Sin Singh, Davinder Singh son of Ra itioners that during the course ate challans. Initially, challans w der Singh on one side and agai side on 30.05.2019 and 15.06.20 oclaimed offenders. Thereafter, ed 06.08.2021 giving clean chit inst the said supplementary chall rt and vide order dated 09.05.20 ng clean chit to Ravinder Singh a ners that after a delay of about th an Kaur filed the present priv

ered n a cks. ngh left d at 148, ngh, anjit of were inst t to lan, 022, and hree

complaint on th registered FIR N version of the in as accused: (1) of Joginder Sing Singh @ Manga night of 23/24. complainant and of the house up came there arme It was alleged th on his left leg an an intention to k into the house i spot after the oc

5.

On Surinder Singh, non-petitioner D punishable unde vide impugned Gurdaspur.

6.

Lea summoning ord wholly illegal an complaint has b he same occurrence on the basi No.62 dated 24.07.2018, but by p ncident. In the said complaint, t Dayal Singh son of Barkat Sing gh, (3) Malkeet Singh @ Mida s a. As per the allegations made i .07.2018, when Robert Masih d in the early morning at about 0 pon someone knocking, the af ed with weapons and forcibly en hat accused Dayal Singh fired a nd thereafter another shot was fi kill him. It was further alleged t in furtherance of their common ccurrence. n the basis of the aforesaid co , Malkit Singh @ Mida and Jas Dayal Singh, have been summo er Sections 307, 452, 120-B IPC summoning order dated 19.08.2 arned counsel for the petition der dated 19.08.2025 passed by nd unsustainable in the eyes of been filed by respondent No.2 is of which the police had alrea putting forth an altogether differ the following persons were array gh, (2) Surinder Singh @ Judge son of Vakil Singh and (4) Jasw in the complaint, in the interven was present in the house of 04:30/05:00 AM he opened the g foresaid accused persons allege ntered the house of the complaina pistol shot which hit Robert Ma fired towards Gurwinder Singh w that the accused persons trespas n intention and fled away from omplaint, the petitioners, nam swant Singh @ Manga, along w oned to face trial for the offen C and Section 27 of the Arms A 2025 passed by the learned ACJ ners contends that the impugn y the learned ACJM, Gurdaspur law. It is submitted that the priv after a delay of about three ye

ady rent yed son want ning gate edly ant. asih with ssed ely, with nces Act JM, ned r is vate

regarding the sa been registered challan. It is fur in view of the p same incident, t proceedings in despite the said petitioners with rendering the im

7.

Thi material placed

8.

Fro of two rival ver Dayal Singh, on Police Station T the Arms Act. I Ravinder Singh place during th Gurdaspur.

9.

Sub complainant Ha same occurrenc incident has bee Judge, Malkeet the house of the ame occurrence for which FIR N d and the police had conducte rther contended that the learned pendency of the FIR and the po the provisions of Section 210 Cr the complaint case ought to h d legal position, the learned Ma hout considering the material a mpugned order liable to be set asi is Court has considered the ri on record. om the record, it clearly emerge rsions of the same occurrence. n the basis of which FIR No. 62 Tibber, District Gurdaspur under n the said FIR, allegations were h and other persons regarding th he intervening night of 23/24.0 bsequently, after a lapse of abo arbhajan Kaur filed the present p ce. In the said complaint, an en set up by alleging that Dayal S Singh @ Mida and Jaswant Sin e complainant and that Dayal S No.62 dated 24.07.2018 had alre d investigation and presented Magistrate failed to appreciate t olice investigation in respect of r.P.C. were clearly attracted and have been stayed. It is argued t agistrate proceeded to summon available in the FIR case, ther ide. ival submissions and perused es that the present matter arises The first version was put forth dated 24.07.2018 was registered r various provisions of the IPC a e levelled against Gurvinder Sin he occurrence which allegedly to

07.2018 at Village Pahra, dist out three years, respondent No rivate complaint regarding the v altogether counter version of Singh along with Surinder Singh ngh @ Manga had forcibly ente Singh had fired a pistol shot wh

ady that that eby out h by d at and ngh, ook trict o.2– very h @ ered

resulted in injur On the basis of order dated 19.0 trial under Secti

10.

Thu proceedings aris side has put for side. The FIR lo whereas the com same incident.

11.

At has already bee competent Cou pending.

12.

The Magistrate coul pendency of the already been reg or entertainmen Where two riva each version ha thereof.

13.

It i and cross-versio their respective ries to Robert Masih and also att f the said complaint, the learne

08.2025 summoning the petition ions 307, 452, 120-B IPC and Se us, from the material available o se out of the same transaction a rth a different version attributing odged on the statement of Dayal mplaint filed by Harbhajan Kaur this stage, it is also not in disput en completed and the police ha urt, where the proceedings aris e contention raised on behalf o ld not have proceeded with the e FIR case does not merit accep gistered regarding an occurrenc t of a complaint containing a co al versions of the same occurre s to be examined on the basis o s a settled principle of criminal on, both cases are required to pro evidence, though as a matter of tempted to fire at Gurvinder Sin d Magistrate passed the impugn ners along with Dayal Singh to f ection 27 of the Arms Act. on record, it is evident that both and the same occurrence, but e g the role of aggressor to the ot l Singh represents the first versi constitutes the cross-version of te that in the FIR case, investigat as presented the challan before sing out of the police report of the petitioners that the learn complaint case on account of ptance. Merely because an FIR e does not ipso facto bar the fil ounter version of the same incide ence are brought before the Co of the evidence produced in supp law that in cases involving vers oceed independently on the basis prudence and judicial practice su

ngh. ned face ach ther ion, tion are ned has ling ent. urt, port sion s of

cases are norma appreciated in it

14.

A s Vicky and othe which lends wei follows: "15 com or sam Vic pet cro Kri Sec rela sam also reg wou tog

15.

Sup Court in Nathi L held in para 2: ally tried by the same court so ts proper perspective and conflic similar view has been taken by th ers Versus state of Punjab and ight to the present contention. Pa

¶5The short question involved in mplaint case and the police case not. As per the Judicial Magis me occurrence. The complaint fil cky-petitioner No.1, Suresh Ku titioner No.3, and Surinder Kum oss FIR registered at the insta ishan, Baldev Suri, Rohit Suri-eir driver whose name was not k ction 210 CrPC mandates the c ating to offense provided the a me party, i.e., on the allegations o filed, and FIR is registered. I gistered the FIR against the resp uld be that both cases should gether." pport is also derived from the Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 19 o that the entire occurrence can cting findings are avoided. he coordinate bench of this cour d another 2024 NCPHHC 1281 ara 15 of the said judgment reads n the present petition is whether e could have been clubbed toget strate, both the cases relate to led by respondent No.2 was agai umar-petitioner No.2, Gagande mar-petitioner No.4 whereas in ance of Vicky, the accused w respondent No.2, Rahul Suri a known. As stated in the beginni clubbing of FIR and criminal ca allegations have been made by made by one party, a complain In the present case, the petition pondent-complainant; thus, the l be tried together but not clubb e judgement of the Hon'ble Ap 990 (sup) SCC 145, wherein it w

n be rt in 132, s as ther inst eep-were and ing, ases nt is ners law bed pex

"2. pre Jud rec arg pro mu sam sep in infl dec in t evid mu

16.

The challan in the F entertain the com

17.

A p Magistrate has complainant un prima facie case stage of summo We think that the fair proced esent where there are cross cases dge must try both the cross ca cording of evidence in one cas guments but he must reserve t oceed to hear the cross case and st hear the arguments but reser me learned Judge must thereaf parate judgments. In deciding ea e evidence recorded in that parti the cross case cannot be loo fluenced by whatever is argued in cided on the basis of the evidenc that particular case without bein dence or arguments urged in the st be pronounced by the same le erefore, the mere fact that the FIR case cannot be construed a mplaint which sets up the counte perusal of the impugned orde taken into consideration the der Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P. e was made out, issued process oning, the Magistrate is only r dure to adopt in a matter like s, is to direct that the same learn ases one after the other. After se is completed, he must hear the judgment. Thereafter he m d after recording all the evidence rve the judgment in that case. T fter dispose of the matters by t ach of the cases, he can rely only icular case. The evidence record oked into. Nor can the judge n the cross case. Each case must ce which has been placed on rec ng influenced in any manner by e cross case. But both the judgme arned Judge one after the other. e police has already presented as a legal bar for the Magistrate er version of the occurrence. r further reveals that the learn preliminary evidence led by .C. and upon being satisfied tha against the accused persons. At required to examine whether th

ned must e he The two y on ded be t be cord ents " e to ned at a

exists sufficient neither warrante

18.

In t the accused per intention, trespa Singh fired a sh led by the comp prima facie opi find any perver Magistrate while

19.

It i exercised sparin when the order proceedings wo case, the compl correctness or o the course of t respective evide

20.

In opinion that th learned ACJM, warranting inter

21.

Acc view that the FI basis of the poli t ground to proceed, and a meti ed nor permissible at that stage. the present case, the complaint rsons and alleges that the accuse assed into the house of the com hot which caused injury to Rober plainant was found sufficient by inion regarding the commission rsity or patent illegality in the e passing the impugned order. is well settled that the inherent ngly, and interference at the stag r suffers from manifest illega ould amount to an abuse of the p aint discloses a distinct counter otherwise of the allegations mad trial after the parties are affor ence. view of the above discussion he impugned summoning order , Gurdaspur does not suffer rference in exercise of the inhere cordingly, the present petition i R case arising out of the same o ice report, it is observed that the iculous appreciation of evidence specifically attributes overt acts ed, in furtherance of their comm mplainant and that accused Da rt Masih. The preliminary evide y the learned Magistrate to form n of offences. This Court does approach adopted by the learn jurisdiction of this Court is to ge of summoning is warranted o ality or when continuation of process of the Court. In the pres version of the occurrence, and de therein can only be tested dur rded an opportunity to lead th n, this Court is of the conside r dated 19.08.2025 passed by from any illegality or infirm ent jurisdiction of this Court. is dismissed. However, keeping ccurrence is already pending on trial court shall make an endeav

e is s to mon ayal nce m a not ned o be only sent ring heir ered mity g in

to ensure that bo are dealt with in comprehensively

22.

The

23.

Ho expression of op

24.

All

March 13, 2026 tripti

Whether

Whether oth the cases arising out of the tw n accordance with law so that th y. e petition stands disposed of in th wever, nothing observed herei pinion on the merits of the case. l pending miscellaneous applicat

r speaking/non-speaking : Speak r reportable

: Yes/N wo rival versions of the occurre he entire controversy is adjudica he above terms inabove shall be construed as tion(s), if any, stands disposed of (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

nce ated an