IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-1229 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 14, 2010 Dalip Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Jaipal & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition is directed against Order dated 2.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereunder revision of the respondents (accused in the complaint case) has been allowed and order of summoning the respondents has been set aside. Learned counsel contends that it was a free fight between petitioner, Dalip Kumar son of Jamna Dass and the respondents. Even the respondents were aggressors. In view of evidence that has come on record, the respondents had been summoned. No reason for setting aside the order Crl. Misc. No. M-1229 of 2009 [2] of summoning is made out. I have considered the contention. The Court of Sessions has taken detailed note of the facts of the case. Following are the reasons assigned for allowing the revision of the respondents:- 1. It seems that there was an altercation on 1.8.2005. Thereafter, another incident took place on 3.8.2005. In regard to incident of 3.8.2005 at 11.00 AM, Jamna Dass, father of the petitioner (complainant) made the first report before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Bapoli. The statement is at variance with the version given out by the petitioner in his subsequent complaint on 5.8.2005 in regard to which the present proceedings were initiated; 2. The petitioner does not even show the presence of Jamna Dass in the incident on 3.8.2005; 3. For the injuries allegedly suffered by the petitioner on 3.8.2005, he was medico legally examined on 4.8.2005 at 11.20 PM. There is no plausible explanation for the delay; Crl. Misc. No. M-1229 of 2009 [3] 4. Another injured Urmila was medico legally examined on 5.8.2005 at 12.00 Noon and there is no plausible explanation for delay in getting herself medico legally examined for the injuries received on 3.8.2005; 5. FIR bearing No.44 dated 5.8.2005 under Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC was lodged at the instance of Jaipal, one of the respondents, against Dalip and others; 6. Challan however has been presented only against Jamna Dass i.e. father of petitioner, Jagdish and Dharampal. The matter was referred by the Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for enquiry. It has been concluded in the report that there is no truth in the complaint filed by petitioner Dalip Kumar. Jamna Dass and others had been pressurising Jaipal (author of the complaint) and others to enter into compromise and withdraw the FIR. I find the reasons to be legally tenable. Learned counsel has not drawn the attention of the Court towards any relevant material that has not been taken note of. Learned Crl. Misc. No. M-1229 of 2009 [4] counsel further has not been able to indicate any perverse reading of evidence. No ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 14, 2010 JUDGE avin