JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by
the petitioner Vinod Kumar challenging the order dated
September 16, 1992 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the summoning order dated
August 14, 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
Ist Class, Hisar in a complaint filed under Sections
323, 504, 506, 403, 406, 34 IPC has been set aside.
2. The petitioner Vinod Kumar had filed a
complaint against the respondents, namely, M.R. Sapra and
Daya Nand under the aforesaid sections. As per the
complainant, he is a partner of M/s. Prema & Sons, Hisar
and carrying on the business of the plywood, glasses etc.
According to the complainant, he had supplied some
building material, namely, the glasses, plywood etc. for
a new building to the respondent Sapra Hospital, Hisar.
The aforesaid goods were worth Rs. 45,000/- and out of this
he had been paid an amount of Rs. 22,000/- and the
remaining amount was still due. On July 12, 1990, the
complainant went to the hospital of respondent No. 1 where
respondent No. 1 was present and the complainant demanded
money and thereupon respondent No. 1 told him as to why he
had come to demand the money. The complainant told him
that he is a small shopkeeper, therefore, he had to demand
money in order to run his business. Upon this, respondent
No. 1 felt annoyed and told the complainant that he would
get him arrested. It is also alleged by the complainant
that respondent No. 1 abused him and also summoned Daya
Nand and both of them thereafter gave fist and leg blows
to him. Accordingly, the complaint in question was filed.
After the preliminary inquiry, the respondents were
summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide
order dated August 14, 1991 under Sections 323/504/506 read
with Section 34 IPC. The aforesaid summoning order was
challenged by the respondents by filing a revision
petition before the learned Sessions Judge. Vide order
dated September 16, 1992, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Hisar set aside the aforesaid summoning order. The
petitioner is now aggrieved against the aforesaid order
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and has
approached this court through the present revision
petition.
3. I have heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajai Lamba, the
learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 and Shri Rajbir
Sehrawat, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for
respondent No. 3.
4. At the outset, Shri Ajai Lamba, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and 2 has brought
to my notice a copy of the judgment dated December 21, 1998
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar,in
a criminal complaint filed by Dr. M.R. Sapra under Sections
420, 452, 504, 506, 34 IPC whereby the petitioner Vinod Kumar
alongwith Parmod Kumar had been convicted under Sections
452, 420, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the said
persons were ordered to be released on probation vide
order dated December 21, 1998 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. Shri Lamba has also placed on
record a certified copy of the judgment dated February
26, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Hisar whereby the aforesaid order of probation granted by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar has been set
aside and the petitioner Vinod Kumar and aforesaid Parmod
Kumar have been convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and pay a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- under Section 420 IPC, rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- under Section 452 IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for a period of six months under Section 506 IPC.
5. It is submitted by Shri Ajai Lamba, the learned
counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 that since the version
put up by the respondents has been accepted by the learned
Courts below, therefore, it could not be taken that the
impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge in any manner is improper under the circumstances of
the case.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
entire matter.
7. I have also gone through the order dated
September 16, 1992 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hisar setting aside the summoning order
passed by the learned trial Magistrate. In my considered
opinion, the aforesaid order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any
infirmity. Further I do not find that any impropriety has
been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Even otherwise, the version put up by the respondents has
been duly accepted by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate while pronouncing the judgment dated December
21, 1998 convicting the present petitioner alongwith one
Parmod Kumar.
8. In this view of the matter, no interference is
called for in the present petition. The same is hereby
dismissed.