LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-19

VINOD KUMAR Vs. DAYA NAND

Decided On January 15, 2003
VINOD KUMAR Appellant
V/S
DAYA NAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Vinod Kumar challenging the order dated 16/09/1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the summoning order dated 14/08/1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar in a complaint filed under Sections 323, 504, 506, 403, 406, 34, IPC has been set aside.

(2.) The petitioner Vinod Kumar had filed a complaint against the respondents, namely, M. R. Sapra and Daya Nand under the aforesaid sections. As per the complainant, he is a partner of M/s. Prema and Sons, Hisar and carrying on the business of the plywood, glasses etc. According to the complainant, he had supplied some building material, namely, the glasses, plywood etc. for a new building to the respondent-Sapra Hospital, Hisar. The aforesaid goods were worth Rs. 45,000/ and out of this he had been paid an amount of Rs. 22,000.00 and the remaining amount was still due. On 12/07/1999, the complainant went to the hospital of respondent No. 1 where respondent No. 1 was present and the complainant demanded money and thereupon respondent No. 1 told him as to why he had come to demand the money. The complainant told him that he is a small shopkeeper, therefore, he had to demand money in order to run his business. Upon this, respondent No. 1 felt annoyed and told the complainant that he would get him arrested. It is also alleged by the complainant that respondent No. 1 abused him and also summoned Daya Nand and both of them thereafter gave fist and leg blows to him. Accordingly, the complaint in question was filed. After the preliminary inquiry, the respondents were summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated 14/08/1991 under Sections 323/504/506 read with Section 34, IPC. The aforesaid summoning order was challenged by the respondents by filing a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 16/09/1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar set aside the aforesaid summoning order. The petitioner is now aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and has approached this Court through the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajai Lamba, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No. 3.