Crl.Rev.No.2843 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.2843 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.8.2010 Om Parkash ......Petitioner Versus Hawa Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby respondents No.1 and 2 were granted the benefit of probation. The case of the complainant, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ The complainant has alleged that he and the Crl.Rev.No.2843 of 2009 (O&M) 2 accused are residents of village Dholu, Tehsil and District Fatehabad . On 17.7.1997 at about 7 p.m. he was going towards his house constructed in his fields after purchasing goods from Bhuna. When he was passing through passage near his fields then all the accused came there and stated that they would teach a lesson to the complainant as the complainant was alone. The complainant was caught by accused Hans Raj and Dalbir Singh and he was thrown on the earth. Accused Hawa Singh gave a lathi blow on the waist of the complainant. Accused Jaggar Singh gave fist blow on the face of the complainant. Hanuman, brother of the complainant and Randhey Sham son of Surja, residents of Dhulu were working in their fields and they had also witnessed the incident. They raised alarm and came at the spot and on seeing them, the accused fled away from the spot. The complainant was got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Bhuna by Jasram, father of the complainant. The accused had encroached upon passage and father of the complainant had filed a civil suit against them in the court and the passage was restored by the order of the court. On this account, the accused were having grudge against the complainant and his family members and had caused injuries to the complainant. The police came in the Crl.Rev.No.2843 of 2009 (O&M) 3 hospital and the complainant narrated the incident to the police.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Respondents No.1 and 2 were convicted for offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) by the trial Court and respondent No.1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 325 IPC, whereas, respondent No.2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 IPC. The Appellate Court has ordered that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be released on probation as they had been facing the criminal proceedings for the last eleven years. Respondents No.1 and 2 were the only bread earners of the family and were not previous convicts. The reasons given by the Appellate Court, while releasing respondents No.1 and 2 on probation, are sound reasons and hence, call for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE August 05, 2010 anita