PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, challenge is to the order dated 30.3.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby revision petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and order dated 11.1.1994 of the Judicial Magistrate summoning the respondent has been set aside and the complaint has been quashed.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge could not substitute his own discretion for that of the Magistrate by examining the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations made in the complaint would prove ultimately and conviction of the accused ordered. He contended that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent and as such he was ordered to be summoned.

(3.) AS per allegations made in the complaint, petitioner is a tenant of one Sohan Singh son of Khushal Singh. Another Sohan Singh son of Tara Singh came to him in November, 1988 and represented that rent be paid to him as he is the attorney of Sohan Singh son of Khushal Singh and is entitled to receive the rent on his behalf. On his representation, rent was paid to Sohan Singh son of Tara Singh from November, 1988 to July, 1993, amounting to Rs. 17,000/-. In July, 1993, petitioner was served with a notice in ejectment petition filed with the Rent Controller through Harbhajan Singh Saini, another attorney in which one of the grounds of ejectment was non-payment of rent with effect from 1.5.1987 to July 1995. Petitioner alleged in his complaint that the fact of cheating came to his knowledge when he received this notice. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and Ashok Kumar as P.W. 2 and Parveen Singh as P.W. 3. On the basis of the allegations made in the complaint as also the evidence, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar concluded as follows :-