262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33782-2012 DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2025 KAPIL DEV ...PETITIONER Versus JATINDER NATH AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Lali, Advocate for the petitioner ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J, (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of order dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula and order dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Panchkula in complaint No.116/1 dated 30.09.1999 vide which the accused were ordered to be discharged.

2. Factual matrix of the case succinctly put forth are that on on 5.9.1999, at about 9.00 AM, when the petitioner was coming from his fields on his tractor and was carrying six bags of maize crop and suddenly all the respondents, in connivance with each other, stopped the complainant/petitioner and snatched the six bags of maize crop and gave beatings to the petitioner and when the petitioner raised hue and cry, at that time father of the complainant/petitioner, who was working in nearby fields, came to the spot and all the respondents/accused also gave beatings to the father of the complainant. Respondent No.1 gave Lathi blow on the right leg of the petitioner and respondent No.2 gave a lathi blow to the father of the petitioner. All the other respondents also gave kicks and fist blows to the petitioner as well as his father. Further all the accused, while leaving the spot, threatened the petitioner of dire consequences, if he does not withdraw the civil suit. All the accused also took away the six bags of maize crop.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith his father went to the police station Raipur Rani and narrated the whole occurrence to the police officials. However, the police officials refused to lodge the complaint against the respondents. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner and his father were also medically examined at Civil Hospital, Raipur Rani. When the police refused to take any action against the respondents, the complainant filed a complaint under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondents. The said complaint was sent to the police station, Raipur Rani for registration of the case, but the police submitted cancellation report and the petitioner did not agree with the same and filed a protest petition.

4. The petitioner led the preliminary evidence and examined himself as CW-1 and also placed on record the copy of the MLR as Ex.Cl and further examined CW-2 Narinder Nath and closed the preliminary evidence. After going through the preliminary evidence thoroughly and carefully, the Id.JMIC, Panchkula summoned the accused respondents for offence under Sections 323/506 read with 149 IPC vide order dated 21.05.2005 and on 26.02.2009, the court of Id.JMIC, Panchkula discharged the accused without taking into consideration the evidence led by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after going through the preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Panchkula vide order dated 21.05.2005 summoned the respondents-accused for offence under Sections 323/506 read with Section 149 of IPC, 1860. However, vide order dated 26.02.2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Panchkula discharged the respondents-accused without taking into consideration the evidence put forth by the petitioner (Annexure P-1). He further contends that aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P-2)

6. It is vehemently argued by the counsel for the petitioner that both the above mentioned orders have been passed in an arbitrary manner, wherein the respondent-accused was summoned and cognizance of offence was taken by the Magistrate and