HARNAM SINGH Vs. GAJJAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya dated 30.3.1987, the present revision petition has been filed. The Facts alleged are that on 3.11.1983 Hamam Singh petitioner was present in his house. At about 7.00 A.M. a Head Constable along with another constable came to his house. They informed the petitioner that he was called by ASI Gajjan Singh. The petitioner accompanied them and was taken to Police Post, Garhdiwala. At the police post Harbans Singh, Kuldip Singh and Mela Ram respondents were present. Respondent ASI Gajjan Singh told the petitioner to restore the possession of the property to Harbans Singh. The petitioner replied that case regarding the aforesaid property was pending in the court of Shri B.S Teji, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur and the learned court has granted an injunction order in his favour. Upon this respondent Kuldip Singh and Mela Ram told ASI Gajjan Singh to take a severe action against the petitioner. The legs and hands of the petitioner were tied with a rope ASI Gajjan Singh kicked the petitioner a number of times. The petitioner was not given anything to cat on 3/4.11.1983. On 4.11.1983 Harbans Singh, Kuldip Singh, Mela Ram and Dev Singh came to the Police Post. Kidar Nath is a deed writer. He was brought by Harbans Singh. At a point of pistol the petitioner was asked to sign. The petitioner signed out of fear. On 5.11.1983 the petitioner was allowed to go. Kartar Singh and Ajaib Singh had come to his rescue.

(2.) The petitioner filed a criminal complaint which was dismissed on 11.11.1983. It was followed by another complaint which was dismissed on 25.2.1985. On the same day, he filed the third complaint.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate had summoned the respondents with respect of offences punishable under Sections 323/330 and 342 Penal Code Respondent Kuldip Singh was declared to be a proclaimed offender. After the ether respondents had put in appearance, the evidence was recorded. The learned Judicial Magistrate discharged the respondents holding that if the said evidence is un rebutted, it will not entail the conviction of the respondents. Against the said order whereby the respondents were discharged, the present revision petition has been filed.