Criminal Revision No. 2339 of 2005 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2339 of 2005 Date of decision: January 28, 2008 Charanjit .....Petitioner Versus M.S. Gupta and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.D.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana RAJESH BINDAL, J. The complainant is in revision before this Court against order October 8, 2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby that of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari summoning respondent no.1 in a complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC, was set aside. The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent no.1 alleging that while he was in the Court of Shri Gopal Krishan, Civil Judge (Junior division), Rewari on December 11, 1996, the respondent no.1 started beating him without any reason and for that reason he filed the complaint. After recording preliminary evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari summoned respondent no.1. However, in revision, learned Additional Sessions Judge while considering the preliminary evidence on record and finding material discrepancies therein set aside the order summoning respondent no.1. It was noted that the allegation of the petitioner that he was beaten up in the Court of Shri Gopal Krishan, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari and while beating he was brought out of the Court, was disbelieved for the simple reason that had any such incident happened in the court room, a complaint would have certainly Criminal Revision No. 2339 of 2005 -2- *** been made by the Judicial Officer but there was no such complaint. It was further noticed that petitioner is a chronic litigant as he is in the habit of filing false complaints against various public servants and other respectables of the city. Still further in the preliminary evidence led by the petitioner, it was found that even the testimony of PW 1 Jagat Singh was not supporting the case of the petitioner as regards the place of the occurrence for the reason that he stated that occurrence took place out side the court room whereas according to the complainant, the same took place in side the court room. Keeping these facts in view and judgment in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 (1) Criminal Court Judgment 49 wherein it is opined that summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Court has to be cautious while exercising the powers set aside the summoning order. With these facts on record, which could not successfully be disputed even by counsel for the petitioner inspite of making strenuous efforts, I do not find any illegality has been committed by learned Court below in accepting the revision petition filed by respondent. In revisional jurisdiction this Court would not like to re-appreciate the evidence. View expressed by the Court below is possible view. The petition is accordingly dismissed January 28, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge