Crl.Rev.No.1675 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1675 of 2008. Decided on: February 19, 2010. Sultan Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Hari Ram and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.A.S.Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Budhwar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 22. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed by Sultan Singh complainant aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in a revision petition by virtue of which the summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, summoning the petitioners vide order dated 23.08.2004, has been set aside. Briefly stated case of the complainant-petitioner . . . 1 Crl.Rev.No.1675 of 2008 before the trial Court is that on 06.12.1999, Singh Ram (now deceased) along with other respondents removed the sugar cane crop forcibly. The said crop was put in the tractor-trolley owned by Singh Ram and Ram Kumar. The matter had also been referred to the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the revisional Court is illegal and that the revisional jurisdiction does not permit the revisional Court to set aside the order of summoning. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the record indicates that for the occurrence dated 06.12.1999, an FIR was registered at the instance of petitioner Sultan Singh. Said FIR was investigated and cancellation report was submitted. The trial Court on the protest petition filed by the petitioner ordered reinvestigation. Despite reinvestigation, the second cancellation report was submitted. The protest petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the FIR was treated as complaint. Thereafter, the complainant-petitioner and Hakam Chand were examined. Finding prima facie evidence against the respondents, they were summoned. The revisional Court has on the basis of the orders passed by Assistant Collector Grade-II,dated 30.11.1999, the revenue report dated 31.05.1999 (EX.P3) and rapat roznamcha dated 20.11.1992 (EX.C4), on the basis of judgment and decree dated 12.09.2000, passed by Civil Court between Sultan . . . 2 Crl.Rev.No.1675 of 2008 Singh and Singh Ram arrived at a conclusion that Sultan Singh petitioner was not in actual possession of the disputed land on the day of occurrence, as such, summoning orders were set aside. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the revisional Court has usurped its jurisdiction in appreciating the documents which were not part of the record. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the order dated 30.01.2006, passed by the revisional Court and I am of the opinion that the revisional Court has placed reliance on the judgment of a civil Court dated 12..09.2000, and other documents referred to in the order to arrive at a conclusion that Sultan Singh having not been in possession of the disputed land, the summoning of the respondents was not valid. In order to appreciate as to how the revisional Court referred to the various documents mentioned in the order, I have perused the record and have arrived at a conclusion that all the documents which have been referred by the revisional Court were part of the cancellation report prepared by the Investigating Agency while investigating/re-investigating the matter. Since the protest petition was treated as FIR, it was open to the trial Court to consider the documents which were put up for forming an opinion whether summoning was necessary. Relying upon a judgment, which is inter se the parties, is not impermissible especially when the said documents have formed part of the record of the police while arriving at a conclusion that cancellation report was to be presented. . . . 3 Crl.Rev.No.1675 of 2008 In view of the revisional Court having arrived at a just decision on the basis of the material put up, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order. Besides this, incident pertains to the year 1999. Since Ram Singh having died, it will not be appropriate, at this stage, to permit the complainant to prosecute the respondents especially when the matter has been investigated twice by the police and civil Court having already settled the rights of the contesting parties. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 19, 2010. rka . . . 4