ABDUL HAQ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABDUL Haq, Revenue Patwari and Lakhmi Chand Kataria, Tehsildar, have filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for the quashment of the complaint and the summoning order dated 19.12.1995, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, and the order dated 18.5.1996 vide which the application for reconsideration of the summoning order 19.12.1995, was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Abdul Aziz and Babu Ram, respondents No. 2 and 3, filed a criminal complaint u/s 165/166, IPC, against Lakhmi Chand Kataria, Tehsildar, Ferozepur Jhirka, Kifayatullah, Kanungo and Abdul Haq, Patwari, alleging that they are the owners in possession of 1/2 share i.e. 6 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Rectangle No. 172 killa No. 3(4-10), 8(6-2), 13/2(1-19), situated at Bye-pass Ferozepur Jhirka, Delhi-Ajmer Road. The complainants purchased the above mentioned land from Amar Chand, presently residing at Hari Nagar, Delhi and Smt. Jagwati, through registered sale deed dated 15.1.1993, registered in the office of the Registrar, Delhi. As such, the complainants are the owners in possession of the land. Mutation was not entered and accepted in the name of the complainants. The complainants asked for entries of mutation but the accused asked the complainants that there is a fee of Rs. 2,000/- for the entry of the mutation. Resultantly the complainants gave Rs. 2,000/- as fee to the accused. On 20.4.1995, the complainants went to the accused along with Om Parkash and Surjeet and asked them to enter the mutation of the land as they have already paid Rs. 2,000/- as fee but the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- more and said that only then the mutation can be entered. According to the complainants, they are poor persons and not in capacity to pay Rs. 10,000/-. They told the accused that they are not in a position to pay the amount upon which the accused pushed them out of the office and said that "your mutation cannot be entered, you can do whatever you want." On this, the complainants requested the accused a number of times but to not effect. So much so, they made an application to the SDO (Civil), Ferozepur Jhirka, but still no action has been taken. The complainants even asked the accused to return Rs. 2,000/- as their work had not been done but they were threatened.

(3.) IN pursuance of the said order, the petitioners appeared before the Magistrate. They did not challenge this order of summoning dated 19.12.1995 but filed an application for the review of the order dated 19.12.1995. The said application was dismissed for the reasons given in paras 2 and 3 of the order dated 18.5.1996, which read as under :-