SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid misc. petitions filed by petitioners-Sukhdev Singh, Avtar Singh, Resham Singh and Darshan Singh arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. The petitioners in these misc. petitions have been summoned as accused for the offences under Sections 365, 342, 352 and 147 IPC in Criminal Case No. 694/2007 (Gamdoor Singh @ Duri vs. Darshan Singh & Ors.) by order dated 6.11.2007 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The said order has been affirmed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh by order dated 26.2.2008 in these separate revisions.

(2.) The respondent complainant filed the complaint referred to above against the petitioners with the following allegations.

(3.) That Gamdoor Singh had lodged a report at Police Station Sangaria on 2.3.2006 against one of the petitioners namely Resham Singh for offences under Sections 452 and 376 IPC bearing FIR No. 116/2006. It was alleged in that report that accused Resham Singh has committed rape with the wife of Gamdoor Singh, respondent No. 2 herein and that the aforesaid Resham Singh was pressuring Gamdoor Singh and his wife to compromise the matter. It is further alleged that when the complaint Gamdoor Singh was working as a mason at Rudradev Agricultural Works at Village Kola near Hanumangarh Town, a call was sent for Gamdoor Singh by his father-in-law namely Sukhdev Singh for coming near the Hanuman Temple. It is alleged that a jeep, in which, accused Resham Singh, Darshan Singh, Avtar Singh and Balwant were sitting came near the place where the complainant was working and took him to the place where his father-in-law namely Sukhdev Singh was waiting for him near the Hanuman Temple. There, he was pressurized for compromising the matter of the FIR No. 116/2006 with Resham Singh, but when he refused, these accused persons took him to the Police Station. Gidderbaha (Punjab) and again pressurized him to enter into compromise, but when he again refused, he was implicated in a false case of recovery of poppy straw.