DAYA NAND Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Daya Nand for quashing the complaint filed by respondent Kashmir Singh with respect to offences punishable under Sections 343/323/365 and 504 IPC and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul summoning the petitioner as an accused besides that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that respondent Kashmir Singh filed the complaint against the petitioner and others. He alleged that respondent was related to Smt. Sarwan widow of Jai Narain. F.I.R. No.143 dated 26.6.1981 was recorded at the behest of one Malha Ram. In that report Chandgi Ram, Des Raj, Vijay Pal, Zora and Yad Ram were recorded as killers of Smt. Sarwan. It was further alleged that in order to grab the property of Smt. Sarwan, Malha Ram in collusion with accused Daya Nand and Umrao wanted to implicate the persons in the murder case who otherwise were entitled to inherit the property of Smt. Sarwan. It had further been alleged that on 27.6.1981 at 1.00 P.M. Daya Nand along with 2-3 constables reached village Mohammadpur. He searched the houses of the persons who were wanted in connection with the murder of Smt. Sarwan. The accused were not found there. Daya Nand, Mala Ram and Umrao entered into a conspiracy to forcibly take the ladies and the children of the persons involved in the murder case to the police station. Daya Nand asked Mala Ram, Umrao and the police constables to take the ladies and the children of the persons wanted in the murder of Smt. Sarwan. Inspector Daya Nand and others in presence of Tara Chand and Ram Narain dragged the respondent and Smt. Phuli and Patasi out of their houses and forcibly placed them in the jeep. After this the respondent and others were taken to the house of Ram Chander. Petitioner hurled filthy abuses on them, his mother and aunt. They were locked illegally at the police station. A petition for habeas corpus was filed by one Chhajju Ram for production of the respondent and others. This Court had appointed a warrant officer. The respondent and others were found in the police station. The respondent, therefore, filed the complaint against the petitioner and others referred to above.

(3.) THE first and foremost question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the present petition is maintainable or not. This objection had been raised in wake of the fact that the petitioner's revision petition had earlier been dismissed while sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. bars a second revision petition by the same person.