IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.Revision No.81 of 2003. Date of decision : 19.04.2010. Shri Jagdish Singh …..Petitioner Versus Smt.Nirmla Devi & Others …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.P. Singh, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. The complainant has approached this Court against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, discharging of the respondents. The complainant filed a private complaint under Sections 447, 323, 427, 506, 504 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 5.3.1990, he entered into an agreement to purchase land measuring 17 Kanals 2 Marlas as described in the complaint with Karam Singh son of Shri Raghubir Singh, predecessor-in- interest of the accused-respondents. He pleaded that Karam Singh had received the earnest money as part of 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the sale consideration and delivered physical possession of the property to the petitioner. A status quo order was passed by this Court on 30.3.2001 and the respondents, despite knowledge of that order, assaulted the complainant when he was taking his animals to a drinking pond at around 10.30 A.M. on the morning of 22.5.2001. The complainant alleged that he was assaulted by the accused when he protested about their intrusion on the suit land by the accused who had taken their tractors there for ploughing the fields. When the complainant objected, they all threatened him with dire consequences and gave him slaps and fist blows. He screamed “Mar Diya–Mar Diya, Bachao-Bachao”, whereupon a number of people came to the spot. On seeing this, the accused fled away after snatching Rs.1500/- from the pocket of the complainant. The complainant then reported the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb on 9.6.2001 and before that lodged a report with the Police Post, Daulaltpur on 23.5.2001. The complainant pleads that the respondents are influential people and it is for this reason that no action was taken against them. The learned Court considered the evidence on record consisting of CW-1 Complainant and CW-2 Bachitter Singh and discharged the accused holding that no case was made out. The Court considered the preliminary evidence consisting of the complainant and Bachitter Singh, who was supposed to be the eye witness 3 to the entire incident, as also the photocopies of the sale deed, orders of status quo passed by this Court and the complaint filed with the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Court holds that no offence is made out and the statement of CW-2 Bachitter Singh who was supposed to be the star witness does not establish the involvement of the respondents in this case. Learned trial Court holds that the allegation of the complainant is that all the accused had beaten him up by giving him slaps and fist blows and this continued for about 4-5 minutes, but he did not subject himself to medical examination as he had not received any injury. The Court holds:- “3. … … … … The complainant has alleged that all the accused persons ave him beatings with slaps and fist blows on his person and it continued for 4-5 minutes. But when he was asked as to why he did not get himself subjected to medical examination, he stated that he had not received any injury so that he did not subject himself to medical examination. But the fact that accused were 12 in number as are named by the complainant shows that thrashing at the hands of 12 persons, definitely, would have left some injury on the person of complainant. … … … …” The other allegation that Rs.1500/-were snatched form him, is also held to be after thought as 4 there is no such mention of this fact in the complaint/letter written to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Another factor taken by the learned Court below by holding that no case is made out is that according to the evidence on record the houses/abadies of Balbir Singh, Gurdev Singh and Sewa Singh are near to the spot of the incident and none of these witnesses or any one from their houses has been produced by them. CW-2 Bachitter Singh was from a different village. Last but not least, in cross-examination the complainant himself states, “Yeh bat theek hai ki asali bat yeh hai ki main kehta hun us jamin ki registery karbao doshigan na karbate hain isliye maine yeh case kiya” In other words, the motive of filing the case is to pressurize the respondents-accused to get the sale deed executed etc. This aspect of the case has been noticed by learned Court below and I cannot see any reason to be differ from the findings arrived at by it. There is, thus, no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. April 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.