MOHD. AHMAD KABADI & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-116
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 19,2012

Mohd. Ahmad Kabadi And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge through this petition is to the order of cognizance dated 22.10.2007 passed in criminal complaint case no.135 of 2007 (new No. 401 of 2007), titled as "Name Ali Vs. Mohd. Ahmad & two others", whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur has summoned the petitioners to stand trial for the offences punishable u/s 323, 504 and 506 IPC. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant Name Ali did file the counter affidavit but later on, his advocate Sri Jagdish Prasad passed away, hence fresh notices were sent to him. The same were served upon his daughter but none has turned up to contest this petition.
(2.) A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in response to the said counter affidavit, which is already on the record. This Court has rendered hearing to learned counsel for the petitioners as well as to learned brief holder for the State. After hearing the matter, it transpires that complainant collects old rubbish waste material from door to door and supplies the same to the shop of petitioner Mohd. Ahmad, who is also in the same vocation but he runs his shop at a definite place. Petitioner no.2 Zahid is real brother of petitioner no.1 whereas petitioner no.3 Sharafat is his brother -in -law. In the course of their business, as afore -stated, it is alleged that about Rs. 80 -85 thousand of complainant became due against petitioner no.1. When the money was demanded by complainant on occasion of marriage of his son, petitioner no.1 flatly refused to concede to the request of complainant and challenged him to do whatever he likes. Complainant ran from pillar to post but in vain.
(3.) IT has been alleged that in the intervening night of 18/19.9.2006 at about 2 AM, all the petitioner along with one other person, armed with weapons, entered the complainant's house and threatened his son, named Nafees, after putting the barrel of revolver on his chest. They threatened complainant to take all the legal proceedings back against them otherwise his son would be shot dead. Hearing the hue and cry raised by Nafees, all the family members of complainant, nay the village people, rushed on the spot which made the accused persons escaped.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.