Judgment:
CRM not M 143.o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M 143.of 2013 Date of decision:
21. 5.2013 Balbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Mahant Chhatter Bhuj Dass ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.VK Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RK Trikha, Advocate for the respondent **** Jitendra Chauhan, J.
(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the complaint No.133, dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P-2) as well as the summoning order dated 2.7.2011 (Annexure P-3).passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, whereby the petitioner alongwith other co-accused have been summoned to face the trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present complaint is a counter blast to the FIR No.109 dated 28.7.2003, registered under Sections 307, 324, 325, 452, 506, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC lodged at PS Mahilpur against the complainant and his associates.
The present complaint has been filed after a gap of two years from the date of the occurrence.
The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case.
He further submits that in view of Section 196(1) Cr.P.C., CRM not M 143.o”
2. the court cannot take congnizance of any offence under Section 295-A of IPC except the previous permission of the Central Government or the State Govt.
Heard.
From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that some altercation took place between the parties in the Dera of Bada Thakardwara.
As per the complaint made by the complainant-respondent, he is the Mahant of the said Dera and manages all its affairs including cultivation of agricultural land measuring 27 Killas and the petitioner in order to grab the said land, attacked the Dera and damaged its property.
In support, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and reiterated the version given in the complaint.
He has also examined CW2 Baldev Singh, CW3 Iqbal Singh, CW4 Dr.Jaswinder Singh, CW5 Daljinder Singh, who corroborated the testimony of the complainant.
The FIR and the complaint case arise out of the same incident.
It is settled law that where the accusation made in the complaint do disclose the commission of offence, the complaint cannot be quashed in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.The allegations made in the complaint are true or not, are the questions, which can only be determined during trial and not otherwise.
The question whether the complainant or the accused -petitioner are the aggressORS.is to be decided by the learned trial Court and not by this Court.
Earlier the petition filed by the co-accused Avtar Singh etc.have already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3.10.2012, CRM not M 143.o”
3. passed in CRM not M 3076.of 2012.
In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.
As such, the present petition is dismissed.
21.5.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE