VIKRAM AND OTHERS Vs. RAM SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 22.02.2010, passed in criminal complaint case no. 11 of 2010, Ram Saran vs Vikram and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC, police station, Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, as also the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal complaint case, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

(2.) Complainant (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against nine accused persons, in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee on 23.12.2009. Statement of Ram Saran was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and statement of Rampal and Jatti were recorded under Sections 202 of Cr.P.C. Having found a prima facie case against the accused persons, they were summoned to face the trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC, vide order dated 22.02.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicants.

(3.) According to the complainant, on 08.12.2009, at 12 noon, he found that the accused persons were collecting crop of his field on a tractor-trolley. Complainant refrained them from doing so, but the accused persons assaulted him with fists and threatened him with dire consequences. Although a prima facie case against the accused persons was made out on the basis of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., but learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complaint against the applicants was purely a counterblast to the earlier complaint filed by applicant no. 2 against the informant and two others. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court towards the order dated 11.01.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee (copy Annexure-4 to the petition) to show that the respondent herein alongwith two others were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC. That incident allegedly took place on 10.12.2009, two days after the incident complained of against the present applicants. Both the incidents are reported in respect of stealing of sugarcane crop. While applicant no. 2 lodged the complaint against respondent and two others on 19.12.2009, the complaint by the respondent against the applicants was filed on 23.12.2009. While the respondent herein alongwith two others was summoned, vide order dated 11.01.2010, the applicants were summoned subsequently, vide order dated 22.02.2010.