Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.: (Oral) - Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is for quashing of order dated 5.8.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, whereby in a complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 323/324/34 IPC (Section 325 IPC added later on), learned Magistrate has declined the prayer to summon respondents no.2 and 4 and ordered summoning of respondents no.1 and 3 for offence under Sections 323/34 IPC only. Challenge has also been laid to order dated 18.9.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 5.8.2014 has been dismissed.

2. As per the complaint made by the complainant, there was a joint land in the names of husband of the complainant and the accused. After retirement, her husband demanded the possession of the land. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties. However, on 25.5.2010, when Dharam Singh came to take the handle of the peter engine from their house, they asked him to take from the house of the accused and thereafter, the accused started abusing, stating that they will not allow the complainant’s family to cultivate the land as per compromise. Thereafter, accused Gurdas Singh armed with Soti and other accused, who were empty handed, came at the spot. The accused Mita @ Charanjit Kaur caught hold of the complainant from her hair and accused Gurmit Singh and Gurmail Kaur rounded the complainant. Accused Gurdas Singh gave a soti blow on the left shoulder of the complainant and after raising hue and cry, they left the spot. Thereafter, after conducting medical examination of the complainant-petitioner, DDR was registered.

3. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record ordered summoning of accused Gurdas Singh, respondent no.1 and Meeta @ Charanjit Kaur, respondent no.3, for offence under Sections 323/34 IPC vide order dated 5.8.2014. The other accused were not summoned by the trial Court in absence of any evidence with regard to the allegations levelled against them. The relevant part of the findings recorded by the trial Court read as under:-

“Firstly, complainant stated that there is a joint land between husband of complainant and accused and after retirement, her husband demanded the possession of the land, which was in possession of accused and thereafter compromise was effected between the parties. She further stated that on 25.5.2010, at about 6.00 a.m,, when Dharam Singh came to take the handle of peter engine from their house, then they asked him to take the handle from the house of accused and thereafter accused Gurdas Singh armed with Soti and other accused empty handed came at the spot. Thereafter accused Meet @ Charanjit Kaur caught hold the complainant from her hairs and accused Gurmit Singh and Gurmail Kaur rounded the complainant and accused Gurdas Singh gave a soti blow on the left shoulder of the complainant. Although counsel for the complainant while pointing out the statement of CW-4 and CW-6 stated that there is a fracture, so offence under Sec.325 is also made out, but if is clear that on 25.5.2010, when her medical examination was conducted, then only one injury was found, which was caused with blunt weapon and on the next day, doctor conducted the supplementary MLR in which he showed two injuries on the person of complainant. So it is clear that in the MLR dated 25.5.2010, there is only one injury. Doctor had reported that injury on the wrist is a fracture, but it is clear that complainant had not stated anywhere that accused had caused injuries on her wrist. So oral evidence of the complainant does not support the medical evidence. So no ground is made out to summon the accused under Sec.325 IPC.

Secondly, counsel for the complainant stated that offence under Sec.324 is made out, but it is clear that there is no injury with the sharp edged weapon, so offence under Sec.324 IPC is also not made out. Similarly comp