Naheed Ara Moonis, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA. The instant revision has been preferred against the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar dated 18.10.2011, whereby the revisionists have been summoned in complaint case no. 1284 of 2011, Kripal Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kansal & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 379 IPC.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the opposite party no. 2 is an employee of the revisionists, who has lodged a frivolous complaint against them, alleging therein, that fifteen days prior to 3.7.2011, he kept 30 litres of mentha oil at their shop, but they had surreptitiously sold away the oil. When it was demanded they told that it has already been sold. On demand of money the revisionists assaulted the opposite party no. 2 with fisticuffs and threatened for dire consequences. They also allegedly looted five hundred rupees from the complainant. The said incident was witnessed by the father of the complainant, Harkesh Singh and one Sau Singh. The complainant tried to lodge the first information report, but when no report could lodge, he filed complaint. The statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses, namely Harkesh Singh and Sau Singh, who had supported the prosecution case. The court below after going through the record arrived at conclusion that prima facie offence is made out and passed the order in a routine manner, summoning the revisionists to face the trial. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that initially police has submitted its report that allegations are absolutely false and no first information report has been registered. A first information report was registered under Section 4/25 Arms Act by the revisionists in which the charge sheet has been submitted against the opposite party no. 2. The present prosecution is a counter blast launched against them.
(3.) PER contra the learned AGA has contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. The revisionists have been summoned after recording of the statements of the complainant and witnesses. There is no merit in this revision and deserves to be dismissed.;