IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.50333-M of 2005 Date of decision: 28 th April, 2010 Rajbir Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Raj Karan and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Lekhraj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Shakti S. Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint (Annexure P-1) under Section 148/149/323/506/430/435 IPC, along with summoning order dated 7 th February, 2004 (Annexure P-4) and the order of affirmation passed by the Revisional Court on 7 th March, 2005 (Annexure P-5). Counsel for the petitioners has raised following three arguments: (a) That regarding the disputed land, the Civil Court has come to a definite conclusion that the possession vests in the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed that once the petitioners are in possession of the land in question, they cannot be fastened with offence punishable under Section 436 IPC. (b) The trial Court before summoning the petitioners, got the matter inquired under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the inquiry report disclosed that it was son of the complainant, who himself had put the Bhatora on fire. Criminal Misc. No.50333-M of 2005 (c) The Bhatora cannot be construed as a human dwelling falling within the ambit of Section 436 IPC. A perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioners have also been summoned for offence under Section 323, 506 and 435 IPC. When the occurrence contained various offences, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot segregate and determine qua each offence. Furthermore, the parties have to adduce their evidence as to the nature of the Bhatora. After summoning, the Court at the time of framing of the charge, can consider the submissions made before the trial Court. At this stage, Mr.Bhardwaj has submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to raise all arguments available to him under provisions of law, before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. Ordered accordingly, with liberty aforesaid. In the present case, complaint was filed in the year 1999. Taking into consideration long pendency of the litigation, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court, is exempted, subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the accused. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 28, 2010 rps 2