Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 57 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumar v. Daya Nand

2003-01-15

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Vinod Kumar challenging the order dated 16/09/1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the summoning order dated 14/08/1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar in a complaint filed under Sections 323, 504, 506, 403, 406, 34, IPC has been set aside. 2. The petitioner Vinod Kumar had filed a complaint against the respondents, namely, M. R. Sapra and Daya Nand under the aforesaid sections. As per the complainant, he is a partner of M/s. Prema and Sons, Hisar and carrying on the business of the plywood, glasses etc. According to the complainant, he had supplied some building material, namely, the glasses, plywood etc. for a new building to the respondent-Sapra Hospital, Hisar. The aforesaid goods were worth Rs. 45,000/ and out of this he had been paid an amount of Rs. 22,000.00 and the remaining amount was still due. On 12/07/1999, the complainant went to the hospital of respondent No. 1 where respondent No. 1 was present and the complainant demanded money and thereupon respondent No. 1 told him as to why he had come to demand the money. The complainant told him that he is a small shopkeeper, therefore, he had to demand money in order to run his business. Upon this, respondent No. 1 felt annoyed and told the complainant that he would get him arrested. It is also alleged by the complainant that respondent No. 1 abused him and also summoned Daya Nand and both of them thereafter gave fist and leg blows to him. Accordingly, the complaint in question was filed. After the preliminary inquiry, the respondents were summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated 14/08/1991 under Sections 323/504/506 read with Section 34, IPC. The aforesaid summoning order was challenged by the respondents by filing a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 16/09/1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar set aside the aforesaid summoning order. The petitioner is now aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and has approached this Court through the present revision petition. 3. I have heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajai Lamba, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. The petitioner is now aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and has approached this Court through the present revision petition. 3. I have heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajai Lamba, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No. 3. 4. At the outset, Shri Ajai Lamba, the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has brought to my notice a copy of the judgment dated 21/12/1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, in a criminal complaint filed by Dr. M. R. Sapra under Sections 420, 452, 504, 506, 34, IPC whereby the petitioner Vinod Kumar along with Parmod Kumar had been convicted under Sections 452, 420, 506 read with Section 34, IPC. However, the said persons were ordered to be released on probation vide order dated 21/12/1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. Shri Lamba has also placed on record a certified copy of the judgment dated February 26, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the aforesaid order of probation granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar has been set aside and the petitioner Vinod Kumar and aforesaid Parmod Kumar have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 under Section 420, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 under Section 452, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 506, IPC. 5. It is submitted by Shri Ajai Lamba, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that since the version put up by the respondents has been accepted by the learned Courts below, therefore, it could not be taken that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in any manner is improper under the circumstances of the case. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. 7. I have also gone through the order dated 16/09/1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar setting aside the summoning order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. 7. I have also gone through the order dated 16/09/1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar setting aside the summoning order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. Further I do not find that any impropriety has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Even otherwise, the version put up by the respondents has been duly accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while pronouncing the judgment dated 21/12/1998 convicting the present petitioner along with one Parmod Kumar. 8. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the present petition. The same is hereby dismissed.