203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.01.2025 Abhey Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Sewa Ram ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Parul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

None for the respondent.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of complaint No. 683 dated 05.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) instituted under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 133 Cr.P.C. as well as summoning order dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 323, 506 IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that the respondent-complainant worked as a technician with the company- Maruti and retired in the year 2001 by means of VRS. Using his savings, he purchased a plot bearing No. 133 in the year 2001 itself and constructed a house. The petitioners opened a service station in front of the said house, which has caused a lot of nuisance in the neighbourhood. To remedy the same, the residents of that locality requested the petitioners to close down the service station, however, they refused. In order to harass the respondent, the petitioners started gathering sand in front of his house so as to block drainage. On 28.03.2007, when the respondent and his son tried to remove the same, the petitioners and their servant gave beatings to them. They also threw bricks at them causing injuries on the head and hands of the son of the respondent. Thereafter, on 19.09.2010, the respondent and his son were at their house when the petitioners, armed with lathi, came there and gave them beatings. About 2-3 days before this incident, a panchayat was also convened that yielded no results and the complaint(supra) was subsequently filed.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the learned trial Court has fallen into grave error by summoning the petitioners as well as one Devinder Singh to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 323, 506 IPC. The said Devinder Singh is shown to be the son of petitioner No.1, which is factually incorrect. In spite of the summoning order having been passed on 07.02.2014, the petitioners have not been served yet. The allegations made by the respondent against the petitioners are general and vague in nature. It is evident that the complaint(supra) has been filed as a counterblast to FIR No.140 dated 29.03.2007 registered under Sections 323,325, 452, 506/34 IPC at Police Station DLF, Gurgaon by the petitioners against him and his son, in order to pressurize them to withdraw the same. In fact, it is a matter of record that the respondent was convicted under Section 323/34 IPC in the FIR(supra) vide judgment dated 29.03.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, however, he was released on probation.

4. Further, there is a considerable delay in lodging the complaint(supra) as the alleged incident pertains to 28.03.2007 and the allegations with regard to the incident on 19.09.2010 have merely been levelled in order to overcome the issue of limitation. As such, the summoning order dated 07.02.2014 has been passed in contravention of Section 468 Cr.P.C. as the limitation prescribed for the offence under Section 323 IPC is 01 year. Moreover, no MLR is available to establish any injury caused to the respondent or his son at the hands of the petitioner, either in the incident dated 19.09.2010 or 28.03.2007. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Food Ltd. vs. Special Judge Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the complaint(supra)