IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.40371-M of 2005 Date of Order: 08.04.2008 Karamjit Singh Bedi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate. RAJESH BINDAL J. The challenge in the present petition is to order dated 05.07.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby in a revision filed by the petitioner the order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar dated 21.01.2004 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Sections 148/452/382/427/323/149 IPC, was upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that seeing the conduct of the respondents whereby the wife of the petitioner was attacked and his household articles were thrown out and stolen by the respondents, the allegations in the complaint filed by the petitioner were clearly made out and accordingly the courts below fell in error in not summoning the respondents. The evidence produced on record by the petitioner was not considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the complaint filed by the petitioner before the trial Court, the factum of the earlier litigation between the parties was not disclosed. The eviction of the petitioner from the premises in his possession had been upheld upto this Court and the possession of the property was taken by the respondents in execution of the decree with the help of the Court. No offence as alleged in the complaint was made out. He further submitted that even otherwise present petition in the garb of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as the petitioner has already availed of his remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Briefly, the facts, as stated are, that the petitioner was tenant in the building owned by the respondents. His eviction was ordered by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 09.02.1995, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.12.1995. Against this order even Civil Revision was dismissed by this Court on 30.01.1996. On 01.03.1996 warrant of possession in execution of the eviction order was issued and on 13.04.1996 the actual physical possession was taken by the respondents with the help of the Court. The complaint has been filed for the alleged occurrence which took place on the date when the respondents took possession of the premises with the help of the Court. Initially vide order dated 28.09.1998 the learned Magistrate had summoned the respondents. However, in revision the order was set aside and matter was remitted back for re-consideration. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2004, the learned Magistrate did not find sufficient material on record to summon the respondents, which was upheld in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the above factual matrix, where eviction of the petitioner had been upheld upto this Court and the possession of the premises was taken from him in execution of the order of eviction by way of warrant of possession, in case the household goods belonging to the petitioner had been shifted out of the premises, nothing wrong was done by the respondents. Even if the bailiff had committed some wrong by not handing over the goods taken out from the premises to the petitioner against proper receipt, he has already been punished for the same in the departmental proceedings. For that the respondents cannot be faulted with. The petitioner is unnecessarily lingering on the litigation since 1996 after having lost in the eviction proceedings and even after the possession of the house had been taken from him in execution of the order of eviction. Still further this Court would not like to re-appreciate the entire evidence in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Once the petitioner had already availed of the remedy of revision before the learned Court below and failed, as second revision is specifically barred under Section 397 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. April 08, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) nt JUDGE