Hawa Singh v. Ram Singh

Present: Mr.Yowan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Virender Mandhan, Advocate, for the respondent. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. * * * Challenge in the present petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C is for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, whereby the petitioners were ordered to be summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, and the order dated 04.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 06.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ complainant-Ram Singh had a dispute with the petitioners with regard to demarcation of his agricultural land. Petitioner No.1- Hawa Singh and petitioner No.3-Jagdish being the government employees used their official positions for conducting the Criminal Misc. No.M-34247 of 2011 ..2.. demarcation in an illegal manner which was opposed by the respondent and members of his family and as such, the petitioners had a grudge against the respondent. On

20.11.2004, petitioner No.6-Om Parkash and his sons, i.e petitioner Nos.1 to 5, brought a Patwari and a Kanungo on the spot and started demarcation of the land. On receipt of the information, the respondent/complainant along with his brother- Sham Lal and son Jitender Pal reached at the spot at about 12.00 noon. For about 05-06 hours, the demarcation process continued. The Patwari of village Kamalpur Roran also reached the spot and when he was demarcating the land, the petitioners started damaging the land marks with an intention to get the wrong demarcation done. When the respondent/complainant resisted to the wrong activities of the petitioners, then Hawa Singh (petitioner No.1) started abusing respondent/complainant and in the meantime, the remaining petitioners brought gandasi, lathi and iron rods. The petitioners caused injuries to Sham Singh, Jitender and the respondent/complainant, as described in the complaint. Mohinder Singh s/o Jagir Singh and Harbans Singh s/o Bhag Singh intervened and rescued the injured persons from the clutches of the petitioners. While leaving the spot, the petitioners threatened the injured that they would be killed by them after getting an opportunity. The injured were medico- legally examined. The matter was reported to the police. When no action was taken by the police, then the respondent/ Criminal Misc. No.M-34247 of 2011 ..3.. complainant filed the complaint for prosecution of the petitioners before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. On the basis of material available on record, the petitioners were summoned for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC vide order dated 06.09.2010. Aggrieved against the order of summoning, the petitioners filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, but the same was dismissed on 04.10.2011 vide Annexure P-3 and hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Area Judicial Magistrate is a non-speaking order. He further submits that the case of civil nature has been given colour of a criminal case. He also submits that the medico-legal examination of injured persons was not conducted on the day of occurrence i.e.

20.11.2004, therefore, it creates doubt on the version of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal. He also contends that the order (Annexure P-2) is reasoned one and every aspect of the case was duly considered by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, , therefore, by any stretch of imagination, the same cannot be termed as a non-speaking order. He further submits that the criminal revision Criminal Misc. No.M-34247 of 2011 ..4.. petition challenging the order (Annexure P-2) has also been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. He also submits that now the trial is at fag end as the case is fixed for arguments before the learned trial court, therefore, the present petition may be dismissed. Heard. The material available on record perused. The order (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, clearly reveals that every aspect of the case has been considered and finding a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, the petitioners were ordered to be summoned. Even the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed while passing the detailed order. At the stage of issuing process, the court is required to find out whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not required to determine the adequacy of the evidence or a probability of the accused being guilty. The court at this stage is not permitted to embark upon the meticulous examination of the evidence or the material available on record. In the case in hand, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, had examined the contents of the complaint and the preliminary evidence led by the complainant and thereafter, decided to issue process against the petitioners. Even the revision petition filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge challenging the impugned summoning order was dismissed Criminal Misc. No.M-34247 of 2011 ..5.. after due scanning of the material available on record. As per learned counsel for the respondent, the case is now fixed for arguments before the learned trial court. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. November 30, 2012 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge