Criminal Revision No. 240 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 240 of 1999 Date of Decision: 20.3.2009 Devender Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Matvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) At the instance of petitioner, case FIR No.30 dated 4.3.1996 was registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 456 & 427 IPC. The FIR was recorded on the statement of Devender Kumar son of Harpal Singh. He stated that he is working as a Barber and is running a shop under the name & style of D.K.Hair Dresser. The shop was taken by him on rent from Surjit Singh. This shop was sold by Surjit Singh to Nachattar Singh accused/respondent. It is stated that Nachattar Singh had dug out ditches about 4-5 feet to the wall of shop due to which there was apprehension that the wall of shop may fall and Criminal Revision No. 240 of 1999 2 may damage the shop. It is further stated that in order to ensure eviction of the petitioner, Nachattar Singh had dislocated the shutter of the shop. Devender Kumar himself appeared as PW.1, Jaspal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.2, Varinder Kumar as PW.3, Swaran Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector as PW.4 and Satpal as PW.5. Devender Kumar had reiterated the allegations which were levelled in the FIR. It was stated that entire occurrence was witnessed by Varinder Kumar, his servant. Devender Kumar in cross-examination stated that Varinder Kumar is his servant from the last 12-13 months; he is 20-21 years old; he is unmarried and he is not sleeping in the shop. The trial Court also considered the evidence of DW.1 Bhupinder Singh, DW.2 Harchand Singh, DW.3 Joginder Singh and DW.4 Satpal Singh. Taking the statements of defence witnesses into consideration, the trial Court held that there was nothing on the record to prove that Nachattar Singh intentionally had done anything to get the shop vacated. Therefore, accused/respondent was acquitted under Section 456 IPC. Mr. Matvinder Singh, Advocate, appearing for the State, has stated that charge was framed under Sections 456 & 427 IPC. No conviction or acquittal for offence under Section 427 IPC was recorded by the trial Court. This Court is conscious of the fact that in this case no State appeal was filed The scope of interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction is very limited. This Court cannot also ignore that occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1996. More than 14 Criminal Revision No. 240 of 1999 3 years are going to elapse. It is essentially a landlord-tenant dispute. Technically to remand the case to the trail Court in order to pronounce order qua offence under Section 427 IPC may defeat the right of speedy trial to the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2 has stated that offence under Section 427 IPC is punishable with both imprisonment and fine. Counsel further submits that without recording conviction of respondent No.2/accused, even if after 14 years fine is awarded, the accused/respondent No.2 can be saved from the ordeal of remand and trial as he is ready to compensate the petitioner by paying the cost of Rs.10,000/-. Cost of Rs.10,000/- be paid by the accused/respondent to the complainant. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 20, 2009 “DK”