Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Ms. Himadari Batra, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri S.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned summoning order dated 21.9.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.2339 of 2011 (Vijay Singh Rana Vs. Hemant Mohan & another), by which the learned Magistrate had issued process to summon the revisionists for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that revisionist no.1 is Deputy Managing Director and revisionist no.2 is C.E.O. of Mohan Mekins Company Limited, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, where the opposite party no.2 was an employee and his services were terminated vide order dated 25.7.2009; that feeling aggrieved with his termination, the opposite party no.2, who was also an union leader lodged a false F.I.R. against the revisionist no.2 and others on 6.2.2010 at Case Crime No.221 of 2010, under Sections 380, 457 I.P.C. for the alleged incident of house breaking and theft dated 10.11.2009; that in above Case Crime No.221 of 2010 upon investigation final report was submitted on 16.4.2010 against which opposite party no.2 filed protest petition and vide order dated 18.10.2010 the learned Magistrate setting aside the final report ordered for further investigation; that during further investigation the I.O. submitted Parcha on 24.5.2011 to the effect that false case has been filed and submitted final report on 31.5.2011; that against the second final report the opposite party no.2 again filed a protest petition on 11.8.2011 which was treated as Complaint Case No.2339 of 2011, re-numbered as Complaint Case No.4885 of 2011 and the above complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 13.1.2012; that on submission of final report in Case Crime No.221 of 2010 opposite party no.2 being union leader felt annoyed and filed the present complaint case with absolutely false, concocted and incorrect allegations; that no incident did take place on 27.5.2011 as mentioned in the complaint; that it is absolutely wrong to say that the revisionists along with two unknown persons committed mar-pit with the opposite party no.2 on 27.5.2011 at about 4:00 p.m.; that learned trial court has not applied its judicial mind to the facts of the case and has acted wrongly and illegally in passing the impugned order of summoning against the revisionists; that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that there was no injury report on record and the witnesses examined by opposite party no.2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were interested witnesses being his friends and were not reliable; that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.;