Dismissed

Vashudev and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2014CRM-M/18660/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a summons issued against petitioners accused of preparing false demarcation reports. The High Court held that a compromise with other accused does not nullify the prima facie case against these petitioners, and their age or case pendency did not justify quashing.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of the summoning order dismissed; orders below remained intact.

Vashudev and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-18660 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-18660 of 2014 DATE OF DECISION : May 28, 2014

¶5

Vasudev and another ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ashok Kumar and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL

¶10

Present Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. ***

¶11

M.JEYAPAUL, J.

¶12

The petition is filed praying for quashing the protest petition/complaint dated 29.10.2007, the summoning order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Rewari on 4.6.2011 disagreeing with the cancellation report dated 6.6.2007 submitted by the Station House Officer of Police Station, Khol and the order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioners challenging the summoning order dated 4.6.2011.

¶13

The core allegation made by the complainant is that the petitioners herein who figure as 1^st and 2^nd accused in the case prepared two false and bogus demarcation reports in collusion with the other accused, in order to grab the property of the complainant. The Station House Officer of the Police Station, Khol having been

¶14

Singh Parvinder 2014.07.04 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

Criminal Misc.No.M-18660 of 2014

¶16

¶17

influenced by the opinion expressed by the District Attorney, Rewari submitted a cancellation report after investigation, completely ingnoring the inquiry conducted by the District Revenue Officer, it is submitted.

¶18

A protest petition was filed by the complainant. The witnesses were summoned on the side of the complainant. The trial Court having examined all the witnesses and the documents produced came to the conclusion that prima facie a case was made out to show that the petitioners herein prepared two false and bogus demarcation reports and that the cancellation report filed just based on the opinion expressed by the District Attorney without properly adverting to the inquiry report submitted by the District Revenue Officer was not acceptable.

¶19

The petitioners herein preferred Criminal Revision aggrieved by the summoning order passed by the trial court. The Additional Sessions Judge who took up the Criminal Revision for consideration rejected the plea of the petitioners and consequently dismissed the Revision Petition.

¶20

It is submitted that the complainant has already entered into a compromise with the other accused based on an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties in the aftermath of the fresh demarcation done in the presence of both the parties. It is further submitted that the matter is pending for about seven long years. The 1^st petitioner is 67 years old and the 2^nd petitioner is 80 years of age. It is, therefore, contended that the summoning order may be quashed.

¶21

I find that there is no merit in the petition filed by the

¶22

Singh Parvinder 2014.07.04 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

Criminal Misc.No.M-18660 of 2014

¶24

¶25

petitioners praying for quashing summoning order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court having adverted to the entire materials produced by the complainant supporting his protest petition came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out as against the petitioners herein. The trial Court also has made a relevant observation that the Station House Officer was simply persuaded by the opinion expressed by the District Attorney, completely ignoring the telling material in the shape of a report submitted by the DRO.

¶26

The question is whether the petitioners prepared false and bogus demarcation reports. The compromise entered into between complainant on the one side and the other accused on the other would not affect the complaint lodged by the complainant as against the petitioners herein. The age of the petitioners will also have no say in the matter of summoning them for facing the trial as a prima facie case was made out as against them.

¶27

In my considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also having thoroughly adverted to the materials on record came to a conclusion that the trial court has rightly issued summons taking the protest petition as a complaint. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.

¶28

(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE

¶29

May 28, 2014 p.singh

¶30

Singh Parvinder 2014.07.04 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vashudev and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vashudev and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarabjit etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Inderjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sarabjit Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Darbara Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Bal Kishan Chauhan Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Deepak Sethi & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.