VARINDER CHOUDHARY Vs. P. KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing Nos. Crl. Revision No. 641 and 642 of 1999 as these are arising out of the same order.

(2.) THE petitioner Varinder Choudhary filed a complaint against the respondents under Sections 323/147/148/149/325/427/436/447/395/504 and 506 IPC on the allegations that he is the resident of Ropar and his father Choudhary Gopal Krishan, owns land as a co-sharer in Village Ghanauli, as mentioned in the complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that his father filed a civil suit against Punjab State Electricity Board and others for permanent injunction restraining them from installing the electric pole on the said land. The said suit was disposed of on the undertaking given by the Punjab State Electricity Board to the effect that they (defendants) would not act forcibly or install electric pole and not to interfere with the possession of the land except otherwise in due course of law. Since the Punjab State Electricity Board wanted to install an electric pole/tower for providing electricity supply to Gujarat Ambuja Company, therefore, the said Company filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the father of the complainant and obtained ex parte injunction order. On appeal, the said injunction order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for deciding the same after hearing the parties. In spite of the aforesaid facts, on 29.12.1994, the respondents came to the land along with some other persons and entered into the land of the father of the complainant with unlawful object to forcefully occupying the land and to construct/install the electric pole and to cause mischief to the crops. It has been alleged in the complaint that all the accused gave abuses to the complainant and also gave slaps to him. Further, the complainant was thrown on the ground and kick blows were given to him. The accused also put on fire the hut of the complainant standing in his fields. The detailed allegations regarding the role attributed to each of the accused has been mentioned in the complaint. The matter was then reported to the police, but the local police did not take any action against the accused being under their influence. Hence, the instant complaint was filed. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined six witnesses, namely, PW-2 Dr. N.K. Singla, PW-3 Dhani Ram, PW-4 Santa Singh, PW-5 Lal Singh and PW-6 Surjit Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ropar besides the complainant himself coming into the witness box as PW-1 and produced on record the X-ray films (Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4), X-ray report (Ex. PA), copy of MLR (Ex. PB), copy of order dated 17.11.1994 (Ex. PD and Ex. PE).

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order, the accused respondents filed two separate revisions before the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. Those revisions were allowed by the Revisional Court, and the summoning order dated 24.3.1995 passed by the trial Court was set aside and the matter was sent back to the trial Court for holding further enquiry into the matter, and to pass fresh order in the complaint in accordance with law, while observing as under :-