JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. (Oral)

Challenge is to the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar, dismissing the complaint filed under Sections 379 , 380, 34 IPC by the petitioner against the respondents, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner and respondent No.1 are the real brothers. Respondent No.2 is the wife of respondent No.1 and sister-in-law of the petitioner. Harbans Singh, father of the petitioner and respondent No.1, expired on 09.02.2010. The dispute, thereafter, arose between both the brothers.

3. As per the petitioner, Harbans Singh, gave a house (haveli) and open land with boundary wall situated in Ade Kali, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, to him. After the death of Harbans Singh, the petitioner came to know about a Will executed by said Harbans Singh and some documents in the shape of passbook, cheque books, diaries and the same were shown to the respondents. On 04.02.2012, the respondents came to Jalandhar to attend marriage of Mandeep Kaur daughter of Sarabjit Singh Dhesi (cousin of the petitioner). After attending the marriage and while leaving from Jalandhar, the respondents had allegedly taken away the Will executed by said Harbans Singh, passbook, cheque books and diaries. The said incident was alleged to have been witnessed by Prabhjot Singh and Ravinder Pal Singh, who were present in the marriage and were sitting in the room. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a complaint dated 28.07.2012 under Sections 379 , 380 read with Section 34 IPC against the respondents, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar.

4. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.11.2015.

5. Still aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have not appreciated the entire material on record in the right perspective and rather passed the same in a wholly untenable manner; that at the stage of summoning of an accused, a prima facie case has to be seen against the accused person, but the learned trial Court in its wisdom had passed the final order, ignoring the entire factual position and merits of the case; that the petitioner in his complaint had specifically levelled allegations against the respondents and also corroborated the same while appearing as PW-1 and that eye-witness, namely, Prabhjot Singh, while appearing as PW-1, had also deposed on the same lines. Thus, keeping in view the specific stand taken by the complainant and the eye-witness, the trial Court ought to have summoned the respondents. He further submits that, being brother, the petitioner did not report the matter to the police; that the petitioner had served a legal notice dated 19.06.2012 upon the respondents through his counsel, calling upon them to return the documents stolen by them, but to no avail.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that the present complaint, which was filed on 28.07.2012, is not maintainable as the dispute between the parties is with regard to a Will and some documents; that the dispute was/is civil in nature; that on the similar facts, the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit bearing No.54921/2013 dated 31.07.2012 seekin