Gurlal Singh And Others vs Balkar Singh

Manoj Bajaj, J

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.18 dated 13.08.2015 under Sections 379, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' - for short) (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned trial Court.

Respondent had brought the complaint in respect of the occurrence, wherein accused Nos.1 to 4 (petitioners) along with some other unidentified persons demolished tubewell room of the complainant after committing criminal trespass in the agricultural land of the complainant. Besides, this some material was also stolen by the accused persons. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint that previously on these allegations FIR No.15 dated 24.12.2015 was registered on a joint complaint given by the complainant-Balwinder Singh son of Mohan Singh and his brother namely Iqbal Singh in respect of the occurrence which took place on 26.12.2014. However, the same was looked into by the police and no action was taken by the police.

In support of the complaint, the complainant had examined in all 7 witnesses in pre-summoning evidence and also adduced documentary evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, judgment and decree dated 01.12.2015 and 24.05.2015. The learned trial Court after examining the material on record, recorded its satisfaction that prima facie case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 380 and 427 IPC is made out and passed the summoning order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the alternative remedy of revision against the impugned summoning order. However, the learned counsel has submitted that the remedy of revision may not be effective as he is seeking the quashing of complaint. This argument is not plausible as the revisional jurisdiction is more appropriate and equally effective to test the validity of correctness of summoning order passed in a complaint case.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that one of the accused person namely Dildar Singh @ Dulla Singh (petitioner No.4) was abroad on the alleged date of occurrence cannot be accepted in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it would be a matter of evidence. It is further argued that on the same set of allegations, no action has been taken in the FIR. Therefore, this complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Again this Court does not find any merit in this argument as in the event of police not taking any action, the litigant/complainant can approach the Court under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. The complainant/respondent has availed the remedy in accordance with law and the Court has after examining the material on record passed the summoning order giving reasons. No other point was raised.

In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere.

Petition dismissed.