IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-5301 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.7.2011 Vijay Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Shiv Sahai and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Rajesh Dhiman, Advocate for Mr.M.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Mr. Rajesh Dhiman has put in appearance on behalf of Mr.M.S.Tewatia. He says that he has no instructions to argue the case and cannot assist the Court. It is to be noticed that the instant petition is pending since February 2011 without there being any attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to argue the case. This has left the court with no other option but to proceed with the determination of the case after perusal of the material before it. The petitioners impugn the order dated 10.8.2010, 18.9.2008 and the complaint dated 23.11.2004 titled as Shiv Sahai etc. Vs. Vijay Singh etc. under Sections 209, 415, 418, 419, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC. On a complaint having been preferred by the complainant in the year 2004, the petitioners were summoned by virtue of order dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure P-2). The Crl.Misc.No.M-5301 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petitioners preferred a revision petition against the order of summoning which has been declined in August 2010 by virtue of order Annexure P-4 which is impugned herein. The instant petition deserves to be dismissed on two counts -- that a second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is impermissible and secondly the perusal of the impugned order reveals the only grievance that the petitioners have made is regarding the co-existing of two remedies i.e civil and criminal being pressed into motion on the same set of facts. If this grievance is to be evaluated, then it has rightly been discarded by the revisional court as it is a settled proposition of law that both civil and criminal remedies can be availed of by a person and it is not necessary that the latter may be an abuse of the process of law. In any eventuality, the petitioners have a sufficient remedy to participate in the proceedings before the learned trial court and agitate all issues which have been raised in the instant petition at the appropriate stage. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 21.7.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss