The court's decision was influenced by the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and doubts regarding the accused's role in causing the injuries.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed. The order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria in Criminal Revision No. 38/2009 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria dated 24.07.2009 may kindly be restored."

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner are that the complainant/petitioner submitted a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya on 06.10.2008, levelling allegations against the accused-respondents regarding assaulting the complainant/petitioner as well as hurling caste based abuses against him; the same was sent by the learned court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to be conducted by the Aarakshi Kendra, Sangariya, whereupon an FIR bearing No. 552/2008 for the offences under Section 323 & 342 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered at Police Station, Sangariya District Hanumangarh, and after investigation, negative final report was submitted before the learned trial court.

3.1. Thereafter, upon being summoned, complainant/petitioner Deendayal and others (Daulat Ram, Lal Chand & Jaspal) appeared before the learned trial court, whereupon their statements were recorded; whereafter, upon hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the learned trial court vide its order dated 24.07.2009 took cognizance against the accused-respondents (Gopal Singh and Arjun Singh) under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC only, while declining to accept the negative final report submitted by the police, and accordingly, the matter was ordered to be registered as a criminal complaint/case.

3.2. Against the aforesaid cognizance order, the accused-respondents herein filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya (learned revisional court), which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 03.03.2010, while quashing and setting aside the cognizance order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned revisional court, the present petition has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner before this Hon'ble Court.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that the learned revisional court has erred in passing the impugned order; and that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the fact that the testimonies of witnesses lent support to the case of the petitioner/complainant, which was supplemented by medical evidence (injury report), wherein two injuries were found on the body of the petitioner. And that, the witnesses' testimony when coupled with the medical evidence, offences under Section 323/34 I.P.C. was found to be made out against the accused-respondents, and thus, the cognizance order passed by the learned trial court was perfectly justified, and the same has wrongly been interfered with by the learned revisional court.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions:-

(a) Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338;

(b) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 SCC 617;

(c) Natwar Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors. RLW 2008 (3) Raj. 2522; and

(d) Shivlal Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2009 (2) WLN 535.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel counsel for the accused-respondents, while opposing the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of the com