Crl. Misc. No. M-4662 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-4662 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 21, 2009 Budh Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. H. S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Budh Singh complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) assailing order dated 10.01.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, as affirmed in revision petition vide judgment dated 10.09.2007 (Annexure P-5) by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar. The petitioner filed criminal complaint under Sections 342, 343, 365, 368, 382, 397, 398, 504, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and under Section 3 (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Annexure P-1) against respondents no.2 to 7 and SI Major Singh (the then Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali Faridkot). After recording of preliminary evidence, Crl. Misc. No. M-4662 of 2008 2 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar vide order dated 10.01.2007 (Annexure P-4) ordered summoning of accused SI Major Singh alone for offences under Sections 342 and 343 IPC and the complaint against the remaining accused i.e. respondents no.2 to 7 herein was dismissed. Revision petition preferred by the petitioner-complainant also stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, in fact, a second revision petition by the petitioner, who has been unsuccessful in revision petition filed before the Sessions Court. However, second revision petition by the same petitioner is not maintainable. Even on merits, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has assigned good reasons for summoning accused no.3 i.e. SI Major Singh only and for not summoning respondents no.2 to 7. The occurrence took place on 28.03.2001. On the same day, petitioner's wife filed criminal writ petition (Annexure P-2). However, in the said writ petition, there was no allegation that the petitioner was insulted in the name of his caste. There was also no allegation of breaking of almirah and removal of cash amount of Rs.36,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 20 tolas. There was also no allegation that the petitioner was threatened to be implicated in false case of poppy husk, opium or Arms Act. It was also not alleged that the petitioner was brought before respondent no.2. Names of the accused were also not mentioned in the writ petition. All these allegations have been made subsequently by the petitioner in the criminal complaint. In the aforesaid context, it is significant to mention that the complaint was filed on 13.10.2001 i.e. after delay of more than six months Crl. Misc. No. M-4662 of 2008 3 from the date of occurrence. The said long delay has also not been explained. Even in application and affidavit filed by petitioner's wife on 03.04.2001 in the writ petition i.e. six days after the occurrence, the allegations made in the complaint were not mentioned therein. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 21, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE