IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1460 of 2005 Date of decision: November 01, 2010 Vinod Kumar Sharma .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State. None for the respondents No.2 to 10. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge has been made to the judgment dated 3.6.2004 passed by the trial court, acquitting the accused-respondents No.2 to 10 of the charges framed against them. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 8.12.1995 the complainant submitted a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faehgarh Sahib alleging therein that earlier he was tenanted under Ajmer Kaur and Raghbir Singh who borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from him for constructing two rooms with a promise that they will rent the house to him, however, they rented the same to some other person. They also did not repay the amount, thereby they caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. They started extending threats to dispossess the complainant forcibly. They hatched conspiracy with Gurmail Singh, Surinder Singh, Harbans Kaur, Avtar Singh, Karnail Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Gurnam Singh and Makhan Singh and prohibited him from entering into the rented premises by use of criminal force. The complainant in order to avoid any untoward incident, started living at another place, but all the household articles remained in the demised premises under lock and key of the complainant. On 8.12.1995, the complainant was passing by the side of the said house, when saw Ajmer Kaur, Raghbir Singh, their sons and Criminal Revision No. 1460 of 2005 -2- *** Karnail Singh coming out of the tenanted premises and on enquiry they disclosed that they had removed all stolen the articles belonging to him and nothing was available there. Had he been there on that day, he would have also been done to death. As such, the accused persons by hatching a conspiracy, dishonestly removed all the house hold articles belonging to him. Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib referred the matter for enquiry to Superintendent of Police (D), Fatehgarh Sahib. On completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. The accused were charged under Sections 380/506/120-B/451 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dharam Pal (PW1), Vinod Kumar (PW2), Balwinder Singh (PW3), Ajit Singh (PW4), Narinder Bhargav (PW5), Gurdial Singh (PW6), Ashok Kumar (PW8), Atambir Singh (PW9) and Balwinder Singh (PW10). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Surjit Singh (DW1). The trial ended in acquittal. Arguments heard. Record perused. The incident in the instant case took place in the month of May, 1995 and the First Information Report was lodged three months thereafter. The allegations are that in the month of May, 1995, the landlord had borrowed a sum of Rs.15000/- from the complainant for constructing two rooms but rented the same to other persons instead of giving those to the complainant and he also did not return the amount. Heard, the dispute is regarding recovery of the amount of Rs.15000/- and further allegations are that the accused removed his house hold articles. There is a serious delay in lodging the FIR which stand unexplained. The court appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No evidence has been brought on record as to what articles he had placed in the house and on which date. As regards the non payment of Rs.15000/-, the matter is more or less of civil nature. No such Criminal Revision No. 1460 of 2005 -3- *** illegality much less irregularity or a error apparent on the record has been shown warranting interference by this court. It is settled by now that if two views are possible then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. For the foregoing reasons this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. November 01, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge