YOGENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very outset, it would be relevant to mention that none turned up on behalf of the complainant Rajbeer (respondent no. 2) despite sufficient service upon him. On the previous two dates also, none was present on his behalf. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant. Hence, this Court rendered hearing to Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners and Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General (Criminal), for the State. Having heard on the controversy involved in the present petition, it appears that the complainant Rajbeer purchased some electronic items from the firms of applicants, namely, Yogender Kumar and Mahender Kumar, who are real brothers and run their separate firms at Haridwar. Complainant made the payment through cheques. Out of those cheques, few got dishonoured by the bank because of insufficient fund in the account of the drawer Rajbeer. So, Kumar Brothers launched the prosecution against Rajbeer under. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by filing the Complaint Case No. 1403/2007 and 1409/ 2007 respectively. Both these cases ultimately resulted into compromise before the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar respectively on 22.12.2008 and 16.10.2007.

(2.) SUBSEQUENT to compromise in the aforesaid cases, Rajbeer lodged an FIR against Kumar Brothers on 28.2.2009 in the milieu and backdrop of purchasing the electronic items like washing machines, etc. He alleged that on 14.2.2009, when he complained that washing machines were not functioning properly and the defects could not be removed despite his repeated requests. On hearing this complaint of Rajbeer, Kumar Brothers allegedly lashed out over him. They hurled filthy abuses and also uttered caste indicating, words and bate him with fists and kicks. He was rescued by the passersby. The applicants/petitioners left the spot with a threatening to kill him in future.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar did not find it proper to take any action against the complainant under Section 182 Cr.P.C. Rather, he rejected the final report and took cognizance vide order dated 1.6.2009 and summoned the applicants/petitioners to stand trial for the offences under Section 323, 504 and 505 IPC.