Vinod Kumar Son of Prem Kumar JaIn Vs. Daya Nand S/O Prithvi Raj Through Sapra Drug Store, - Court Judgment

Viney Mittal, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed bythe petitioner Vinod Kumar challenging the order datedSeptember 16, 1992 passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Hisar whereby the summoning order datedAugust 14, 1991 passed by the learned Judicial MagistrateIst Class, Hisar in a complaint filed under Sections323, 504, 506, 403, 406, 34 IPC has been set aside.

2. The petitioner Vinod Kumar had filed acomplaint against the respondents, namely, M.R. Sapra andDaya Nand under the aforesaid sections. As per thecomplainant, he is a partner of M/s. Prema & Sons, Hisarand carrying on the business of the plywood, glasses etc.According to the complainant, he had supplied somebuilding material, namely, the glasses, plywood etc. fora new building to the respondent Sapra Hospital, Hisar.The aforesaid goods were worth Rs. 45,000/- and out of thishe had been paid an amount of Rs. 22,000/- and theremaining amount was still due. On July 12, 1990, thecomplainant went to the hospital of respondent No. 1 whererespondent No. 1 was present and the complainant demandedmoney and thereupon respondent No. 1 told him as to why hehad come to demand the money. The complainant told himthat he is a small shopkeeper, therefore, he had to demandmoney in order to run his business. Upon this, respondentNo. 1 felt annoyed and told the complainant that he wouldget him arrested. It is also alleged by the complainantthat respondent No. 1 abused him and also summoned DayaNand and both of them thereafter gave fist and leg blowsto him. Accordingly, the complaint in question was filed.After the preliminary inquiry, the respondents weresummoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class videorder dated August 14, 1991 under Sections 323/504/506 readwith Section 34 IPC. The aforesaid summoning order waschallenged by the respondents by filing a revisionpetition before the learned Sessions Judge. Vide orderdated September 16, 1992, the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Hisar set aside the aforesaid summoning order. Thepetitioner is now aggrieved against the aforesaid orderpassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and hasapproached this court through the present revisionpetition.

3. I have heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learnedsenior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajai Lamba, thelearned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 and Shri RajbirSehrawat, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana forrespondent No. 3.

4. At the outset, Shri Ajai Lamba, the learnedcounsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and 2 has broughtto my notice a copy of the judgment dated December 21, 1998passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar,ina criminal complaint filed by Dr. M.R. Sapra under Sections420, 452, 504, 506, 34 IPC whereby the petitioner Vinod Kumaralongwith Parmod Kumar had been convicted under Sections452, 420, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the saidpersons were ordered to be released on probation videorder dated December 21, 1998 passed by the learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Hisar. Shri Lamba has also placed onrecord a certified copy of the judgment dated February26, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Hisar whereby the aforesaid order of probation granted bythe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar has been setaside and the petitioner Vinod Kumar and aforesaid ParmodKumar have been convicted and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and pay a fine ofRs. 1,000/- under Section 420 IPC, rigorous imprisonmentfor a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine ofRs. 1,000/- under Section 452 IPC and rigorous imprisonmentfor a period of six months under Section 506 IPC.

5. It is submitted by Shri Ajai Lamba, the learnedcounsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 that since the versionput up by the respondents has been accepted by the learnedCourts below, therefore, it could not be taken that theimpugned order passed by the learned Additional SessionsJudge in any manner is improper under the circumstances ofthe case.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to theentire matter.

7. I have also gone through the order datedSeptember 16, 1992 passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Hisar setting aside the summoning orderpassed by the learned trial Magistrate. In my consideredopinion, the aforesaid order passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge does not suffer from anyinfirmity. Further I do not find that any impropriety hasbeen committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Even otherwise, the version put up by the respondents hasbeen duly accepted by the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate while pronouncing the judgment dated December21, 1998 convicting the present petitioner alongwith oneParmod Kumar.

8. In this view of the matter, no interference iscalled for in the present petition. The same is herebydismissed.