SARABJIT SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioners seeking setting aside of the summoning order dated 29.08.2008 and quashing of complaint in CC No. 1695 of 2006 and proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners/accused persons namely Sarabjit Singh Anand and Amarjit Singh Anand whereby the petitioners were summoned by the learned MM under Ss. 341/506/448/323/380/34 IPC.

(2.) The aforesaid criminal complaint was filed against the petitioners by Mr. Sudesh Kumar and three other persons who purchased the property bearing number 6, Cavalry Lane, Mall Road, Delhi -110007 from one Manjeet Singh Anand, the step brother of the petitioner herein. According to the complainants, they got possession of the portion of the aforesaid property as shown in the site plan filed along with the complaint. They employed one chowkidar and started renovation work thereon. The remaining part of the said property was in possession of the petitioners. The allegations are that on 24.8.2006 at about 9 p.m. both the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention started quarreling with the complainant and asked his labours to stop renovation work. The work was stopped and the matter was reported to the police by the complainant vide DD No. 64 B on 24.8.2006 at about 11.45 p.m. The area SHO and the ACP had also visited the site and assured the complainant to look into the matter. A written complaint was also made to the police on 25.8.2006 at about 5.45. pm vide DD No. 48B with copies sent to concerned ACP and DCP of the area. It is alleged that though the SHO asked both the parties to maintain status quo, but he did not allow the complainant party to go inside the premises. The SHO and staff went inside the premises and gave beatings to the chowkidar and harassed and misbehaved with his wife and they were thrown out of the premises by the police in connivance with the petitioners herein. Two PCR calls were made and the telegrams were also sent to the Commissioner of Police as well as Lt. Governor narrating the incident and behavior of the SHO and that the police was threatening the complainant party to compromise the matter with the petitioners. It is alleged that the complainant was called several times to the police station by the police and despite the complainant having made the above complaint, case was not registered by the SHO, rather the complainant was threatened to withdraw the complaint. He also alleged having made several complaints against the SHO to higher authorities, but without any action. In support of his complaint, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and his co -purchaser as CW2, Manjit Singh as CW3, Ramjeet Singh as CW4 and ACP Shri M.N. Tiwari as CW5 as his witnesses for the purposes of summoning the petitioners as accused persons.

(3.) The learned MM vide the impugned order recorded that he has perused the statements of the complainant's witnesses CW1 to CW5 and the documents and was of the opinion that prima facie case was made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid provisions of law. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioners' counsel on the ground that civil suits were pending inter se parties in respect of the property in question and hence the complaint was not maintainable. It is also submitted that from the averments as made in the complaint and the examination of the witnesses as examined by the complainant before the learned MM, there was no case made out against them. It is also submitted that the allegations were against the SHO, but he has not been made a party and hence no case was made out against them. It was then submitted that since there was no case made out against the petitioners, the learned MM declined to register an FIR under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C.