( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of crl. Revision Nos. 286/2001 filed by Smt. Ved Kumari and veena, 287/2001 filed by Kapil and 226/2001 filed by harish which arise out of the same order dated 15/02/2001 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in crl. Rev. No. 58/99 - Sushil Kumar vs. State and another.

( 2 ) IN short, the facts giving rise to the petitions are these. S. K. Bhalla, respondent No. 2 herein filed a complaint pertaining to the occurrence dated 12/12/1998 against petitioners and three others under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 308 and 506 (Part I) Indian Penal Code and after recording statements of respondent No. 2, CW-1 and sudershan Kumar, CW-2, petitioners,and three others were summoned to face trial for offences under, sections 279/323/34 Indian Penal Code by the order dated 16/03/1999 by a metropolitan Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no. 2 preferred TO Criminal revision No. 58/99 and while allowing revision and remanding the case back, metropolitan Magistrate was directed to summon Harish, kapil, petitioners and Amit under sections 452/308/34 Indian Penal Code and Smt. Ved Kumari, Veena (petitioners), Rani and Suraj under sections 452/323/34 Indian Penal Code by the order dated 15/02/2001 by an, Additional Sessions Judge. It is this order which is being impugned by the petitioners.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 is the owner lessee of House no. XVI/70, Gali No. 2, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Smt. Ved Kumari, one of the petitioners in crl. Rev. No. 286/2001 is alleged to be the co-owner/lessee to the extent of 2/3rd of adjoining house No. XVI/72, situated in said Gali. Occurrence dated 12/12/1998 is stated to have taken place on a piece of open land in between the said houses. Respondent No. 2 who argued in person, contended that said piece of land is owned by him.

( 4 ) IN support of the submission, he drew my attention to the photostat copies of sale deed dated 12/03/1975, conveyance deed dated 21/01/2000, admission made on behalf of DDA, defendant in Para No. 3 of the written statement in Suit No. 92/2001/97 and observations made in the order dated 11/12/1998 passed by a Senior civil Judge in MCA No. 131/98. On the other hand, it was urged by Sh. Siddarth Luthra for petitioners that said land, in fact, is a public street. He invited my attention to the prayer made by respondent No. 2 in crl W. No. 3987/99, order dated 9/07/1999 whereby the writ was dismissed as withdrawn and order dated 17/04/2000 passed in Civil Revision No. 616/98 whereby Civil revision No. 268/99 filed by Smt. Ved Kumari, petitioner was also disposed of. In said writ wherein MCD was impleaded as respondent No. 4, one of the reliefs claimed by respondent No. 2 was that it be declared that piece of land delienated in red colour in the site plan Annexure A-9 and shown as public street in the layout plan Annexure A-1 by respondent No. 4 together with any order, direction, notification etc framed / passed / issued by it for declaring the same as public street, are illegal, void, invalid, ineffective and not binding on respondent No. 2 and the land exclusively belongs to respondent No. 2. To be only noted that in aforesaid Civil revision, pending suit, the parties have been directed to maintain status quo as of date with regard to nature of passage (land) in question by the order dated 17/04/2000 by this court.

( 5 ) IN my view, issue of ownership of land in question need not be gone into for deciding these petitions. Para No. 9 of the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 (copy with site plan at pages 41 to 49 on file of crl. Rev. No. 286/2001) which is material, is reproduced below :-

"that again at about 3. 30 PM on 12. 12. 98 all the accused persons, mentioned above, collected as they were instigated by the inaction of the ASI Ram Kumar tyagi and got prompted to take law into their own hands, therefore, accused harish came on a two wheeler scooter alongwith his son Kapil as pillion rider holding a Belcha in his