IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.3252 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 20, 2010 GURCHARAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS OM PARKASH & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BR Gupta, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 3. Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad. A revision was preferred, however, after a delay of more than 6 months. The application for condonation of delay has been dismissed vide order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the respondents have taken a very fair stand that they would have no objection if the revision is heard on merits, however, the respondents need to be compensated by way of costs. I have considered the fair stand of the respondents. This petition is allowed. Order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P- Criminal Misc. No.3252 -M of 2010 2 3) is set aside, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondents. The parties are required to appear before the Court of Sessions at Fatehabad, on 5.5.2010. The costs would be paid before the proceedings are taken up by the revisional court. April 20, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?