SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.04.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur vide which petitioners have been summoned for the offence punishable under sections 426, 452, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). Complainant Mahendra Singh (respondent no. 2) filed a complaint before Civil Judge, (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur on 19.03.2005 stating therein that a civil suit bearing no. 242 of 1993 was filed by Bhukan Lal, grandfather and father of the applicants /petitioners against the complainant and his family members. The suit was decided against Bhukan Lal and since then all the accused persons/ applicants were having grudge against the complainant and his family members. They want the complainant to vacate the property question in suit and they want to purchase the same. Now, one of the applicants Rishikant has filed another civil suit no. 105 of 2004 against the complainant before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur has directed the parties to maintain status quo. The complainant is a small farmer and belongs to backward class, the applicants /petitioners have threatened the complainant number of times, therefore, complainant submitted a complaint before SDM and SHO, police station Jaspur on 24.02.2005 and on 09.03.2005 but no action has been taken on his complaints.

(2.) ON 17.03.2005 at about 07.00 O'clock all the accused entered the courtyard of complainant by scaling the wall and pushed the complainant and his mother. They also threatened him with dire consequences. Out of fear complainant closed the door and remained inside the house. All the accused remained in the premises of his house for 10 minutes. They also broke the old wall of complainant's house and caused damage to the tune of Rs. 300/-. According to the complainant, Tej Pal Singh Chauhan, Shakeel Ahmad, Ram Singh and Darshana Devi, mother of the complainant had seen the occurrence. Complainant went to the police station to lodge the report but report was not recorded by the police official rather they threatened him as accused applicants are influential persons having political connections.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that from the statements of the complainant and witnesses examined under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it is clearly proved that petitioners had entered the courtyard of the complainant and had demolished the wall of the complainant and petitioners had also threatened him and his mother with dire consequences.