- (1.) As identical points of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of CRM No. M-31336 of 2012 (for brevity "1 st case") and CRM No. M-35164 of 2010 (for short "2 nd case"), arising out of the same case/FIR, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions, have been extracted from (1) CRM No.M-31336 of 2012 titled as "Udey Bhan & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr." (1 st case) for ready reference in this context.
(2.) The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petitions and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Kamal alias Battu Kansal son of Ram Dutt Kansal respondent No.2 (in short "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused Udey Bhan & Khem Chand, by means of FIR No.164 dated 18.8.2005 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 452 & 506 read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad.
(3.) After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) against the petitioners-accused. The trial Court considered the final police report, did not frame charges and discharged the petitioners-accused, by way of order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P3 in 2 nd case).;