SUKHWANT RAI ANAND Vs. SANJAY ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/complainant-Sukhwant Rai Anand has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by learned CJM,Jagadhari, dismissing his Criminal Complaint No.258 of 2004 under Sections 323,324,394,436,452,504,506 and 34 IPC; as also the order dated 8.7.2010, whereby in revision the said order was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari.

(2.) The petitioner/complainant had filed a complaint with the allegations that on 9.5.2004 his brother-Sanjay Anand/respondent no.1- alongwith his Clerk Gopal (respondent no.2 herein) besides two other persons armed with screw driver and knife inflicted injuries to him, damaged his household articles, set his house on fire and threatened to kill him if he did not withdraw the cases filed by him against respondent-Sanjay and others. The accused were also alleged to have snatched his gold chain, cash, gun and revolver. Thereafter the petitioner allegedly got himself medico legally examined where he remained admitted for 5-6 days. It was also alleged by the complainant that upon receipt of information police recorded DDR No.19 dated 9.5.2004 but took no action against the respondents. It was further alleged by the complainant/petitioner that after his discharge from the hospital he had went to his sister's house but on 18.5.2004 police forcibly took him from there to his own house and in connivance with the respondents recovered his revolver and gun from his own house after planting them in his absence.

(3.) In support of his allegations petitioner examined Malik Singh, as CW1, Raj Kumar Photographer as CW-3, HC Padamvir Singh as CW4 and petitioner himself deposed as CW2. The learned trial court on the basis of material produced on record did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents and hence dismissed his complaint vide order dated 15.10.2009. The revision petition filed by complainant/petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 8.7.2010. Hence present revision petition.