JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J. 

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) seeking quashing of order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hansi in case arising out of FIR No. 273 dated 03.05.2014, registered under Sections 379, 447, 506 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Narnaud, District Hisar, whereby an application filed by respondent No.2/complainant under Section 319 of the Code for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused had been allowed, as well as for quashing of order dated 08.01.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.07.2018 had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant Raghubir Singh on 24.04.2014 alleging therein that there was some dispute qua the partition of land owned by him. His son Tirath Singh had filed applications for partition of the said land before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade, Tehsil Hansi. The partition had been allowed and Sanad Taqseem (partition deed) had been got prepared. Warrant of possession were issued as per the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and possession of the property, which had fallen to the share of the complainant/his son, had been given to them. He further alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Partap Singh etc. were harassing the complainant and were interfering in his peaceful possession over the land which was in his lawful possession/ownership. On 21.04.2014 also, they had extended threats to the complainant that they would not let him harvest his crop and if he did so, then he would be killed. He also alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Jagbir Singh were armed with pistols, whereas other co-accused were having jellies and they had criminally intimidated the complainant and his family, had harvested his crop forcibly and had taken away the same with them. On these allegations, a case under Section 147, 149, 379, 447 and 506 of IPC was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the petitioner and two more persons named in the FIR i.e. Sunil and Raj Kumar were found to be innocent and their names were ordered to be kept in Column No. 2 of the challan report, whereas other accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against them.

3. As per the record, during the course of trial and after recording of examination-in-chief of the complainant, an application under Section 319 of the Code was moved by the complainant, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 25.07.2018, thereby summoning the present petitioner as an additional accused and the said order was affirmed by the learned revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 08.01.2019.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A thorough and proper investigation was conducted in the matter and it was found that he was neither present at the spot of alleged incident nor any specific or overt act had been committed by him. He was rightly found to be innocent and had not been challaned. However, the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, did not take into all these material facts into consideration and passed a non-speaking and perverse order. It is further argued that even the learned revisional Court did not apply its judicious mind and had dismissed the revision petition filed by him by passing a non-speaking order. With these broad submissions, it is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned State counsel has not raised any serious objection to the