RAJ SAINI Vs. PARKASH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners - Raj Saini, Vishav Saini, Vijay Saini and Murti Devi, have preferred this revision against the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide which he set aside the order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, dismissing the complaint of Parkash Singh-respondent/complainant filed against them under Sections 323, 324 and 506 IPC.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition, are that above said complaint was filed on the allegations that on 8.9.2002 at about 6:00 PM the complainant went to the spot after he came to know that petitioner No.1 was removing the board of Parkash Hospital and Nursing Home by re-painting the same in the name and style of Smt. Raj Rani Hospital and Nursing Home. When he asked the painter not to do so petitioner No.1 became furious and started struggling. The other petitioners also came to the spot and at that time Vishav Saini petitioner No.2 was holding an iron rod whereas Vijay Saini petitioner No.3 was holding a danda (wooden baton). He was caught hold of by petitioner No.1 and petitioner No-4 and was slapped by them. Petitioner No.2 gave a blow with his iron rod and petitioner No.3 gave blows with the help of danda to the complainant. He went to PHC where first aid was given to him and he was also medico-legally examined by the Doctor. He filed a private complaint before the Magistrate in which the preliminary evidence was recorded in the form of the statement of complainant PW-1 and Balli Saini PW-2, who is alleged to be one of the eye-witnesses. Documents were also tendered during the preliminary evidence. However, that preliminary evidence did not find favour with the Judicial Magistrate, who dismissed the complaint, vide his order dated 24.5.2008 on the ground that the complainant was medically examined after the delay of twenty four hours of the occurrence and there was no reason/explanation for the same and there was a contradiction about the taking of the complainant to PHC on the day of occurrence itself and there was no corroboration to the statement of the complainant. The complainant preferred a revision which was accepted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, who vide aforesaid order came to the conclusion that there was prima facie evidence against the petitioners for summoning them. The order passed by the Magistrate was set aside without any further direction to the Magistrate.

(3.) Notice of the revision was given to the complainant/respondent. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.