- (1.) The petitioners are seeking quashing of complaint filed by respondent No.2 pending before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi and consequent proceedings therein, including summoning order dated 08.09.2014 vide which they were summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC.
(2.) The facts which emerge from the file are being noticed first. Respondent No.2 got FIR No. 120 dated 19.07.2010 registered against the petitioners complaining commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi. The record shows that in the FIR the police submitted the cancellation report. Dis-satisfied with it, respondent No.2 instituted a complaint in the Court against the petitioners and one Rajanbir Singh alleging therein that on 13.07.2010 she along with her nephew Satnam Singh had gone to their fields. Bhagwan Singh, Harjit Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Amrinder Singh, Jarnail Singh, Rajanbir Singh, Swaran Singh and 15/20 unknown persons armed with weapons were present there and assaulted her and attempt was made to outrage her modesty. When Satnam Singh intervened, then Raje inflicted injury on his head. They raised noise, upon which Mohinder Singh and Jagtar Singh came to their rescue. By way of preliminary evidence, the complainant stepped into the witness box as CW4. She examined Satnam Singh and Mohinder Singh;Dr. Atul Rattan proved the MLRs of injured Ranjit Kaur and Satnam Singh.
(3.) The trial Court found that no case under Section 354 IPC was made out and summoned the petitioners and Rajanbir Singh under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC. Impugning the complaint and the summoning order, the instant petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners had urged that after investigation, the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 was found to be false and cancellation report was filed and the complaint was filed with malafide intention to harass the petitioners at the instance of Nirmal Singh etc. against whom the petitioners had filed an application before the SDM Sultanpur Lodhi about blocking of the water course. He had further urged that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature and by twisting and concealing the true facts, the complaint was filed in the Court. It was urged that a civil suit for injunction had been filed by petitioner Gurmeet Singh, wherein respondent No.2 was one of the defendants. According to him, the summoning order was passed without application of mind. Reply by respondent No.2 was filed and an objection regarding maintainability was taken that the petitioners had failed to avail the alternative remedy of revision. Learned counsel for the complainant had submitted that the petitioners being influential persons had managed the cancellation report and the trial Court had rightly summoned the petitioners. It was urged that the grounds on which the petitioners had sought quashing were disputed questions which could not be considered in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully.;