- (1.) The epitome of the facts, giving rise to decide the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that Chander Mohan son of Uttam Chand complainant-respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") is a permanent resident and is residing with his family members in House No.660/1, Prem Nagar, Narwana, District Jind for the last about 15 years. According to the complainant, he is getting the government pension from Narwana. He has two big medical shops in front of hospital and opposite busstand, where his sons are working round the clock. They are paying house tax, sales tax & income tax and have gas, telephone connections and ration card on the same address. The complainant and his family members have eight votes and exercised their right to vote in every election. The Chief Election Commissioner of India has issued the photo identity cards to them. The complainant claimed that petitioner-accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who is working as Clerk in the Municipal Committee (for short "the MC"), Narwana alongwith some other officers of the MC with a malafide, criminal, fraudulent intention illegally deleted their names from the voters' list, without any prior information and basis/reason, in order to defame them. The complainant made the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, who marked the inquiry and the SDM found the accused guilty and sent his report to the DC for further action.
(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the accused have mala fidely, criminally, fraudulently and illegally deleted the names of his family members from the voters' list on a false plea that they had left the city, in order to deprive them from exercising their valuable right to vote. In the background of these allegations, the complainant filed a complaint (Annexure P1) against the petitioner-accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 218, 464, 465, 466, 471, 499 and 500 IPC in the manner indicated hereinabove.
(3.) Taking cognizance on the complaint, the trial Magistrate summoned the petitioner-accused, by virtue of summoning order dated 15.1.2000. Having recorded the pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was accordingly charge-sheeted under sections 166, 167 and 465 IPC, vide order dated 24.11.2005 and the case was slated for evidence of the complainant. He did not challenge the indicated summoning order and the order framing the charge.;