IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 19.03.2026 Ajmer Singh through LRs. ........Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others .........Respondents CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate, with Mr. Hiten Chugh, Advocate, for respondent no.3.

***

SUBHAS MEHLA , J (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the revision petition filed against the order dated 26.07.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon in criminal complaint titled as ‘Ajmer Singh v. Nirbhai Singh and others’, whereby the Court has summoned accused under Sections 323, 324, 295-A, 341, 148, 149 and 506 IPC, was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant, Ajmer Singh, filed a complaint against respondents no.2 and 3 and seven others alleging that on 14.10.2011 at about 11:00 AM, while returning from Court at Jagraon along with his son Davinder Singh and others, the accused persons intercepted them near a drain bridge; that the accused, armed with a knife and other weapons, wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him; that specific allegations including inflicting a knife injury on his finger, pulling his beard, removing his turban and ‘gatra’, and causing further injuries by giving fist and kick blows; that the occurrence was witnessed by accompanying persons, who intervened and rescued him, whereafter the accused fled away from the spot; that he was taken to Civil Hospital, Jagraon for medical examination; that despite approaching the police authorities, no action was taken, compelling the complainant to file the impugned complaint. In preliminary evidence, Davinder Singh son of complainant Ajmer Singh (deceased) appeared as PW1 and Sukhdarshan Singh, an eye witness, appeared as PW2 and after going through the preliminary evidence, all the accused were summoned under Sections 323, 148, 149 and 506 IPC. Aggrieved against the said order, respondents no.2 and 3 had filed a revision petition before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2015. Hence, present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the private respondents had got FIR No.180 dated 14.10.2011 registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station City Jagraon, under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506 and 149 IPC; that the petitioner sought registration of cross case but the police did not do so and therefore, criminal complaint dated 27.02.2012 was filed in which summoning order dated 26.07.2013 was passed against the private respondents and others; that the private respondents challenged the said order by way of revision petition and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 11.02.2015; that the private respondents did not deserve to be discharged in view of provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C and the complaint was to be tried along with the case registered on the basis of FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the impugned order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana is legal and justified and does not call for any interference; that FIR No.180 dated 14.10.2011 had already been registered at Police Station City Jagraon with respect to the same occurrence and the allegations levelled in the present complaint arise out of the very same set of facts. The complainant, instead of pursuing the remedies available in law within the framework of the said FIR, chose to file a separate criminal complaint, which amounts to abuse of the process of law; that the plea of the petitioners regarding non-registration of a cross-case does not entitle them to maintain a parallel complaint on identical allegations. The provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. are intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and