DIWANA Vs. JAIPAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 1.10.2014 (Annexure P -2) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissing the revision of the petitioner -complainant against the order dated 6.9.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, whereby the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed and accused -respondents were discharged, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), for setting aside the impugned orders.

(2.) Briefly put, relevant facts recorded by the learned trial court in para 1 to 3 of its impugned order, are that complainant was a retired railway employee and was residing with his family in Saini Mohalla, Jind, whereas the accused were anti -social elements and were habitual of creating nuisance in the mohalla after taking drink. It was alleged that about ten months ago, the accused were abusing the passer -bye in the mohalla after taking drinks and when the complainant asked them that they should live nicely and should not disturb the peace of others, then the accused became furious and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It was averred that on 30.9.2009 at about 9:00 P.M., when the complainant was coming to his house after purchasing medicines, he was forcibly restrained in the street by all the accused persons, who caught hold the complainant with an intention to cause hurt to him but he was rescued by the neighbourers. It was submitted that again on 19.10.2009 at about 9:00 P.M., all the accused persons forcibly entered in the house of complainant armed with lathis under the influence of liquor and in furtherance of their common intention, they voluntarily caused injuries to the complainant and his son Bir Bhan with their respective weapons and also caused damage of Rs. 5,000/ - and broke the television of the complainant. Sadhu son of Harphul rescued them. While leaving, the accused threatened to kill him if he reported the matter to the police. The complainant reported the matter to the police but no action was taken. He prayed that action be taken against the accused.

(3.) The complainant in support of his case, in preliminary evidence, examined complainant Diwana as CW1 and Bir Bhan as CW2. Thereafter, preliminary evidence was closed and accused were summoned under Ss. 323/452/506 read with Sec. 34 IPC. In pre -charge evidence, complainant Diwana stepped into witness box as CW1 and Bir Bhan as CW2. Thereafter, pre -charge evidence was closed by learned counsel for the complainant.