SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. SURIENDERA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"), has been maintained by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 12.01.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in private complaint No. 8-I/15, whereby after finding prima facie case against the present petitioners, the summons were issued to them.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that on 18.06.2015, around 2:00 P.M., the respondent/complainant (hereinafter to called as "the complainant") was working in her land, in the meantime, the petitioners came there and started abusing her. Petitioner No. 1, Sanjeev Kumar, who was having sickle (drat) in his hand, attacked the complainant. Petitioners No. 2 to 6 have also beaten the complainant and the mason with the fist blows. The petitioners also threatened to kill the complainant and stolen bricks from the land of the complainant. As per the complainant, the petitioners also took Rs. 50,000/- forcibly from her pocket and not only this, they also caused the loss of Rs. 50,000/- by their acts. Consequently, the matter was reported to the SHO, Barsar, upon which, complaint vide G.D. entry No. 37(A), dated 18.06.2015, was registered against the petitioners. The complainant was medically examined and her MLC was procured. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence, issued summons to the petitioners vide order dated 12.01.2017, which reads as under:

(3.) Mr. Munish Datwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the MLC of the complainant contains two injuries, out of which, one is old. He has further argued that the witnesses examined by the complainant have deposed contrary to what has been deposed by the complainant, as the complainant has deposed that the witnesses came on to the spot later on, but the witnesses have deposed otherwise. He has argued that summoning order has been issued without appreciation to the fact that several litigations are already pending inter se the parties, as such, the same required to be quashed.