VINAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, initially, petitioner-complainant Vinay Kumar son of Jai Ram (for brevity "the complainant") has filed a private criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against Charan Preet Kaur widow of late Sushil Kumar and Laxman Verma son of Ram Lal accused respondents No.2 and 3 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 323, 341 and 506 read with section 34 IPC and Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

(2.) Taking into consideration the preliminary evidence on record, the trial Magistrate has summoned the accused only for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 323, 341 and 506 read with section 34 IPC (except u/s 3 of the Act), by virtue of impugned summoning order dated 17.7.2010 (Annexure P2).

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by the complainant was dismissed as well by the revisional Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 24.8.2012 (Annexure P3).