BALBIR SINGH Vs. DHANPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing the order dtd. 15/2/2021 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed qua respondents No.4, 5 and 7 to 10 and for setting-aside the order dtd. 25/9/2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner for summoning respondents No.4, 5 and 7 to 10 has been dismissed and the prayer for summoning respondents No.4, 5 and 7 to 10 in complaint No.488 of 2015 instituted on 28/10/2015 under Ss. 427, 148, 149, 451, 452, 504, 506, 392, 380 IPC has also been declined.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the wife of complainant namely, Anju, legally acquired a 150 square yards plot through Court judgments dtd. 8/12/2007 and 27/7/2010, which were against Subhash (now deceased), the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3. Despite these judgments, Anju continued facing interference over the said property. On 12/11/2012, she received threatening phone calls, prompting her to file a police complaint. Later on, Dhanpati, Bhateri @ Monika, Ritu, Raghubir, Surinder, Rakesh, Kiran, Deepak, Vijay and Manjeet, allegedly with gang members, forcibly entered the aforesaid property and demolished a room, and stole the belongings, and they threatened Anju, her brother Rajbir, and witness Parmit and prevented them from intervening. Although FIR No.1622/12 was registered, however, it failed to include an earlier incident of 13/12/2011, when the accused persons had also allegedly demolished the room. Anju discovered this omission only in the year 2015 when she was called to testify her version in the Court. Additionally, on 23/24/8/2014, while attempting to carry out work on the plot with a videographer, the accused persons again obstructed her efforts, allowing only partial video documentation. These repeated acts of interference and intimidation form the basis of her legal action against the accused persons.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred in overlooking the crucial evidence, including eyewitness testimony and photographs of the damaged property. He further submits that all the accused persons were named in the second complaint dtd. 13/11/2012 (Annexure P-2), and respondents No.7 and 8, who are sons of respondent No.6 are habitual offenders and member of land grabbers. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal has incorrectly relied on an FIR related to a prior incident, failing to distinguish the present complaint, which pertains to a different set of allegations and therefore, the order dtd. 25/9/2023, dismissing the revision petition for summoning the accused persons is arbitrary and unlawful.