SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this order, I shall dispose of CRM -M -19815 of 2012 titled "Sukhwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another " and CRM -M -3008 of 2013 titled "Manjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another" as these emerge out of complaint No. 37 dated 19.7.2008 and impugned order dated 25.1.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and involve identical questions of law and facts for adjudication. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CRM -M -19815 of 2012.

(2.) JOGINDER Singh son of Bakhshish Singh respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 160 dated 23.10.2007 in Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala for commission of offence under Sections 447, 448, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Sukhwinder Singh (petitioner in CRM -M -19815 of 2012), Manjinder Singh (petitioner in CRM -M -3008 of 2013) and Nachhattar Singh. Later, he filed criminal complaint No. 37 dated 19.7.2008 against the aforesaid persons in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. After conducting preliminary enquiry, wherein the complainant examined four witnesses, the learned trial court dismissed the complaint and cancellation report was accepted vide order dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure P -5). The complainant preferred revision petition before the Court of Sessions to impugn order dated 8.11.2010 passed by the Magistrate, the petition was partly allowed and it was held that the respondents are required to be summoned to face trial under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has contended that the revisional court gravely erred in holding that the accused are liable to be proceeded against for committing offence punishable under Section 506 IPC when otherwise, there is no material on record to establish their liability. During the course of investigation in FIR No. 160 dated 23.10.2007, the Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Jalandhar conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted report negating the plea of the complainant. It is further argued that as the complainant does not want to give up management of Gurudwara Bhai Punjab Singh despite appointment of a Managing Committee to look after affairs of the gurudwara, he had earlier lodged a report with the police and later filed the complaint in the Court to put pressure upon the members of the Managing Committee to stay away from affairs of the gurdwara.