LAKHVIR SINGH Vs. TARSEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C so as to seek setting aside of the order dated 22.9.2012 (Annexure P -4) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot dismissing the complaint filed by him against the accused -respondents for offences under Sections  380/392/504/506/34 IPC and also of the order dated 11.9.2013 (Annexure P -5) passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot while dismissing the revision filed by him against the aforementioned order dated 11.9.2013.

(2.) THE petitioner had instituted the complaint dated 4.10.2008 (Annexure P -1) on the allegations that on 1.6.2008, all the accused -respondents forcibly and illegally broke open the locks of two shops taken by him on rent from the Cooperative Society and mis -appropriated the articles lying therein, besides taking forcible possession of the shops. After recording preliminary evidence, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, vide order dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P -2) summoned the accused -respondents to face trial for committing the offences under Sections 382 and 392 IPC. Aggrieved of the same, the respondents moved this Court by filing Crl. Misc. Nos. M -33462 of 2010 and M -16787 of 2011. Both the petitions were allowed on 5.7.2012 (Annexure P -3) for the reason that the trial Court had not referred to the enquiry report dated 10.9.2009 submitted by Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura, while passing the summoning order despite the fact that the said Court had sent the matter to Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura for enquiry and in the report so submitted by the S.H.O, it was concluded that no case of theft of material by the accused was made out, but the said report was not considered by the Magistrate while summoning the accused and, thus, the summoning order suffered from patent error and was liable to be set aside. The Magistrate was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the enquiry report.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned orders (Annexures P -4 and P -5), this Court is of the considered view that it was the petitioner, who had taken the two shops of the Cooperative Society on rent but he had defaulted in paying the same. The complaint was filed merely for the purposes of avoiding the payment of monthly rent. Further, the petitioner has not been able to prove that he had stored any articles in the shops and if that be so, there was no question of the accused committing theft in respect of those articles. Further, the complaint was filed after more than one month of the occurrence. Also, in the enquiry conducted by the police pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate, it was found that no case of theft of the material belonging to the petitioner by the accused was made out.