- (1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of complaint No. 1093 dated 31.07.2006 titiled Bachu Singh vs. Sumer Singh and others under Sections 148/149/323/324/325/447/506/34 IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Hathin, Distt. Mewat (Nuh) pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin (P-14) and summoning order dated 12.07.2010 (P-18) A case under Sections 285/323/447506/148/149 was got registered by petitioner Sumer Singh against against Chandi, Umed, Jasmat, Ramesh, Bachu Singh, Ramvir @ Ranvir, Hari Chand, wives of Jasmat, Ramesh and Bachu Singh at Police Station Hathin on 18.11.2005 with the allegations that on 17.11.2005 at about 3.30/4.00 P.M while he and his son Nardev were sowing their fields, the above mentioned accused attacked them with various weapons and caused injuries to them. There is a dispute between the parties of 82 kanals 10 marla of land. The petitioners Sumer and Harender filed a suit for possession against Chandi, father of Bachu (complainant in the present case) regarding land in the above mentioned F.I.R which was decreed in their favour vide judgment dated 02.06.2003 (P-4 and P-5). In execution of the decree, warrants of possession were issued and physical possession of the land was delievered to the petitioner Jasmer Singh and Harender Kumar on 16.06.2005 vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 440. . Thereafter, one F.I.R No. 319 dated 18.11.2005 was got registered by Sumer Singh accused Bachu Singh filed a cross complaint before JMIC, Palwal against the petitioners with the allegations that they caused injuries to him and his brothers which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to Police Station Hathin for registration of the case and as such F.I.R No. 90 dated 08.04.2006 u/s148/149/323/324/325/447/506 IPC and under Section 24 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station, Hathin. After investigation of the said complainant, the police found it to be false and cancellation report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate. Bachu Singh dissatisfied with the investigation of the police filed the above noted complaint u/s 323/324/325/447/506/148/149/34 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act against the petitioners (P-14) .
(2.) Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 06.01.2009 dismissed the complaint by passing a detailed order (P-15). Bachu Singh filed a revision petition against the order dated 06.01.2009 which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 16.07.2009 and the case was referred back the Court of Illaqa Magistrate with directions for passing a fresh order (P-17). The Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 12.07.2010 summoned the petitioners for facing trial under Sections 148/323/325/447/506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC (P-18). A revision petition against this order was filed by the petitioner but the same was withdrawn vide order dated 16.04.2011 (P-19) It is not disputed that the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 16.07.2009 of remanding back the case to Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioners could have challenged the order by way of filing a revision and that order has attained finality, therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable.
(3.) The present petition stands disposed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take all their pleas before the trial Court. In the meantime, personal appearance of the petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 before the trial Court is exempted subject to the following conditions:- (i) petitioners shall be represented through counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute his/her/their identity as an accused: (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in his/her/their absence but in the presence of his/her/their counsel; (v) shall appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court; and (vi) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose.;