IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1409 of 2008 Date of decision : October 21, 2009 Sohan Singh ....Petitioner versus Nirmal Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 33602 of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 13 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Criminal Revision No. 1409 of 2008 Sohan Singh complainant has filed this revision petition impugning judgment dated 15.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, thereby acquitting respondent nos. 1 to 4 in FIR No. 11 dated 9.2.2005, under sections 447, 506 IPC, Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana. According to FIR lodged by the petitioner on 9.2.2005, he and his brothers were owners in possession of 199 kanals 15 marlas land. They mutually partitioned the same in the year 1981 and were in possession of Criminal Revision No. 1409 of 2008 -2- their respective portions since then. On 25.5.2003, there was dispute among the brothers regarding the property and the petitioner remained in jail for about ten months. In his absence his brothers tress-passed into his land for which case under sections 447 and 506 IPC was pending against them. On 4.1.2005, respondent nos. 1 to 4 took forcible possession of the passage which was left as per mutual settlement. Respondent nos. 1 and 4 are brothers of the petitioner whereas respondent nos. 2 and 3 are sons of respondent nos. 1 and 4 respectively. The accused also threatened the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Besides ASI Gurdial Singh who investigated the case, the prosecution examined only petitioner-complainant Sohan Singh PW2. He reiterated his version. Learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the accused because there was un-explained delay in lodging of the FIR. Trial court also observed that in the revenue record the joint land of the petitioner and the accused has not been partitioned by metes and bounds and the said land is still joint land of the parties as per revenue record. In addition thereto, the petitioner was facing the trial under section 307 IPC in a case lodged by respondents herein. The aforesaid reasons cannot be said to be inadequate for passing the order of acquittal. No document was placed on record to substantiate the version of the petitioner or to depict that any such passage has been left in mutual settlement or that there was any such mutual settlement at all. As noticed hereinabove, the land continues to be joint of the parties in the revenue record. Delay of five weeks in lodging the FIR has also not been explained. The petitioner himself was facing trial under Criminal Revision No. 1409 of 2008 -3- section 307 IPC in a case lodged by the respondents. Except self serving statement of the petitioner, no other evidence has been adduced to substantiate the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that civil court has passed decree in favour of the petitioner during pendency of the instant case before the trial Magistrate. However, no such document was placed on record of the trial court or of this Court. Trial court record has been called for and perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that copy of temporary injunction order was placed on the record of the trial court. However, no such document is found on the record of the trial court. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned judgment of acquittal. The revision petition is completely devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 21, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'